Opinion ID: 1770262
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Deficient Performance And Prejudice

Text: An error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment. Id., 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. at 2066. In this regard, [t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2052. This reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Id. This is not just a mere outcome determination. Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369-370, 113 S.Ct. 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993). Setting aside a conviction just because counsel's error may have caused a different outcome gives the defendant too great of an advantage. Id. Instead the question should be absent counsel's errors, would the factfinder have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt? Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695, 104 S.Ct. at 2068-2069. Kentucky courts have previously articulated this standard as counsel is constitutionally ineffective only if performance below professional standards caused the defendant to lose what he otherwise would probably have won. Haight v. Commonwealth, 41 S.W.3d 436, 441 (Ky. 2001) citing United States v. Morrow, 977 F.2d 222, 229 (6th Cir.1992). The critical issue is not whether counsel made errors but whether counsel was so thoroughly ineffective that defeat was snatched from the hands of probable victory. Id. To see if the factfinder would have had reasonable doubt, the court must review the evidentiary record available to the judge or jury. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695, 104 S.Ct. at 2068-2069. Surely, a verdict or conclusion which has little evidentiary support is more likely to have been affected by counsel's error than a verdict which is supported by substantial evidence. Id., 466 U.S. at 696, 104 S.Ct. at 2069. But, overall, the court must review the factual findings that were untainted by counsel's errors with the findings that were affected by counsel's errors to see if the defendant met the burden of showing that the decision reached would have been reasonably likely to be in his favor absent the errors. Id.