Opinion ID: 2504
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The State Court's Denial of Wilson's Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Was an Unreasonable Application of Federal Law.

Text: To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment, as noted above, a defendant must demonstrate (1) that his attorney's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052 and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different, id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. To satisfy the first prongthe performance prongthe record must demonstrate that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the `counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Such errors include omissions [that] cannot be explained convincingly as resulting from a sound trial strategy, but instead arose from oversight, carelessness, ineptitude, or laziness. Eze, 321 F.3d at 112. Under the second prongthe prejudice pronga reasonable probability of a different result is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The prejudice prong can be satisfied even if the errors of counsel cannot be shown by a preponderance of the evidence to have determined the outcome. Id.