Opinion ID: 1869014
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: arguments and discussion of law

Text: The first four issues Conner raises challenge the effectiveness at trial of his appointed attorney. To succeed on these claims, he must satisfy the two-part test articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) and adopted by this Court in Stringer v. State, 454 So.2d 468 (Miss. 1984). Conner bears the burden of showing (1) that counsel's performance was deficient, and (2) that his defense was prejudiced by the deficient performance. Roland v. State, 666 So.2d 747, 750 (Miss. 1995); McQuarter v. State, 574 So.2d 685, 687 (Miss. 1990); Stringer v. State, 454 So.2d at 476. Moreover, Conner must show that but for counsel's errors, the outcome of his case would have been different. Nicolaou v. State, 612 So.2d 1080, 1086 (Miss. 1992); Ahmad v. State, 603 So.2d 843, 848 (Miss. 1992). He faces a strong but rebuttable presumption that counsel's performance falls within the broad spectrum of reasonable professional assistance. Moody v. State, 644 So.2d 451, 456 (Miss. 1994). On review, we look with deference upon counsel's performance, considering the totality of the circumstances to determine whether it was both deficient and prejudicial. Moody, 644 So.2d at 456; Carney v. State, 525 So.2d 776, 780 (Miss. 1988). If the petitioner raises questions of fact regarding counsel's deficiencies or any prejudice resulting therefrom, he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Moody, 644 So.2d at 456; Alexander v. State, 605 So.2d 1170, 1173 (Miss. 1992). When we find that counsel's performance was ineffective, the case will be remanded for a new trial. Moody, 644 So.2d at 456.