Opinion ID: 1347002
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Trial Counsel's Performance was deficient under an objective standard of reasonableness.

Text: Initially, we note that: In reviewing counsel's performance, courts must apply an objective standard and determine whether, in light of all the circumstances, the identified acts or omissions were outside the broad range of professionally competent assistance while at the same time refraining from engaging in hindsight or second-guessing of trial counsel's strategic decisions. Thus, a reviewing court asks whether a reasonable lawyer would have acted, under the circumstances, as defense counsel acted in the case at issue. Syllabus Point 6, Miller, Id. After carefully reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that it is unnecessary for us to decide whether the circuit court was correct in each of its ineffective of assistance of counsel findings. Even if we assume that ineffective assistance of counsel occurred in this case, we do not believeunder the facts of this specific casethere is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different. Syllabus Point 5, Miller, supra .