Opinion ID: 1687222
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: was mr. taylor denied effective assistance of counsel.

Text: The standard of review for ineffective assistance of counsel is set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The Strickland standard was adopted by this Court in Gilliard v. State, 462 So.2d 710, 714 (Miss. 1985). The test to be applied is (1) whether counsel's overall performance was deficient and (2) whether or not the deficient performance, if any, prejudiced the defense. Cole v. State, 666 So.2d 767, 775 (Miss. 1995). The burden is on the defendant to prove both prongs. Id.; citing Edwards v. State, 615 So.2d 590, 596 (Miss. 1993). The adequacy of counsel's performance, as to its deficiency and prejudicial effect, should be measured by a totality of the circumstances. Cole, 666 So.2d at 775; citing Frierson v. State, 606 So.2d 604, 608 (Miss. 1992). This Court in Cole stated that the level of scrutiny to be applied when measuring the performance of counsel against the deficiency and prejudicial prongs of Strickland is to look at the over-all performance. Cole, 666 So.2d at 775; citing Nicolaou v. State, 612 So.2d 1080, 1086 (Miss. 1992). There is a strong, yet rebuttable, presumption that the actions by the defense counsel were reasonable and strategic. Cole, supra ; (citations omitted). According to the second prong, which is the prejudicial prong, the defendant must show that there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068; Cole, 666 So.2d at 775. Taylor has not shown this Court anything in the record that would suggest his counsel's overall performance was deficient or prejudicial. Taylor pleaded guilty in order to avoid a trial by jury that would have subjected him to a possible sentence of death. The only thing that might have been different if the case had gone to trial is the sentence that Taylor received. In short, Taylor has failed to supply this Court with an adequate record showing with specificity and detail any evidence which might rebut the strong presumption in favor of counsel's performance being both adequate and reasonable. Therefore, we hold that Taylor was not denied effective assistance of counsel.