Opinion ID: 1439724
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Requirements for post-conviction relief

Text: In order to actually receive post-conviction relief from the motion court, [f]irst, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). To establish ineffectiveness, a defendant must show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. To establish prejudice he must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 390-91, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (internal citations omitted). To prove ineffectiveness with regard to death penalty sentencing, [the defendant] must show that, but for his counsels' ineffective performance, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have concluded after balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, death was not warranted. Rousan v. State, 48 S.W.3d 576, 582 (Mo. banc 2001). When the motion court determines whether counsel was ineffective, [a] strong presumption exists that trial counsel was effective and an appellant bears a heavy burden of overcoming that presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Tokar, 918 S.W.2d 753, 761 (Mo. banc 1996) (citations omitted). There is also a presumption that counsel's alleged omissions were sound trial strategy. Id. at 766. Trial strategy is not a ground for ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Chambers, 891 S.W.2d 93, 109 (Mo. banc 1994). Strategic choices made after a thorough investigation of the law and the facts relevant to plausible opinions are virtually unchallengeable. Tokar, 918 S.W.2d at 761 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690-91, 104 S.Ct. 2052). Where counsel has investigated possible strategies, courts should rarely second-guess counsel's actual choices. Middleton v. State, 103 S.W.3d 726, 736 (Mo. banc 2003).