Opinion ID: 1702189
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether trial and appellate counsel were constitutionally ineffective.

Text: ¶ 6. To establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel a petitioner must prove that under the totality of circumstances (1) the counsel's performance was deficient and (2) the deficient performance deprived the defendant of a fair trial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Benson v. State, 821 So.2d 823, 825 (Miss.2002); Burns v. State, 813 So.2d 668, 673 (Miss.2001). The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness [of counsel] must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result. Burns, 813 So.2d at 673 (citations omitted). ¶ 7. With regard to the showing of deficient performance, the inquiry focuses on whether counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. That is, consider whether the assistance was reasonable under all the circumstances seen from counsel's perspective at the time, and the prevailing professional norms for attorneys. Id. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052; Burns, 813 So.2d at 673; Neal v. State, 525 So.2d 1279, 1281 (Miss.1988). Because of the distorting effects of hindsight, there is a strong presumption that counsel's conduct was within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Burns, 813 So.2d at 673. ¶ 8. With regard to the showing of the deprivation of a fair trial, the petitioner must show how counsel's errors prejudiced the defense. Id. at 673-74. The petitioner must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different. Id. If the conviction is challenged, the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the factfinder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. If the sentence is challenged, the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer  including an appellate court to the extent it independently reweighs the evidence  would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death. Id. ¶ 9. Berry cites several instances as illustrations of counsel's ineffectiveness. We must consider whether the petition, affidavits, and trial record render it sufficiently likely that he received ineffective assistance of counsel so that an evidentiary hearing should be held. Neal, 525 So.2d at 1281.