Opinion ID: 2509099
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Applicable legal standards for review of this case

Text: A petitioner for post-conviction relief is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only if he supports his claims with specific factual allegations that if true would entitle him to relief. [3] He is not entitled to such a hearing if the factual allegations are belied or repelled by the record. [4] The petitioner has the burden of establishing the factual allegations in support of the petition. [5] Also, an appellant must present relevant authority and cogent argument; issues not so presented need not be addressed by this court. [6] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel presents a mixed question of law and fact, subject to independent review. [7] To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a claimant must show both that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. [8] To show prejudice, the claimant must show a reasonable probability that but for counsel's errors the result of the proceeding would have been different. [9] Judicial review of a lawyer's representation is highly deferential, and the claimant must overcome the presumption that a challenged action might be considered sound strategy. [10] To establish prejudice for a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, the claimant must demonstrate that an omitted issue would have had a reasonable probability of success on appeal. [11]