Opinion ID: 220374
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ineffective Assistance Under Strickland

Text: To establish constitutionally ineffective assistance, the defendant must show that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient, and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064. Strickland’s two-part test applies to challenges to guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel. United States v. Pease, 240 F.3d 938, 941 (11th Cir. 2001). To establish deficient performance, the petitioner must show his counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable in light of prevailing professional norms. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 104 S. Ct. at 2064-65. To satisfy Strickland’s prejudice prong, the petitioner must show “a reasonable 5 We review de novo the district court’s determination whether the state court acted contrary to clearly established federal law, unreasonably applied clearly established federal law or made an unreasonable determination of fact. Reed v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corrs., 593 F.3d 1217, 1239 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 177 (2010). 7 probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S. Ct. 366, 370 (1985). Our standard of review is “doubly deferential” when “a Strickland claim [is] evaluated under the § 2254(d)(1) standard.” Knowles v. Mirzayance, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 1411, 1420 (2009). “The question is not whether a federal court believes the state court’s determination under the Strickland standard was incorrect but whether that determination was unreasonable – a substantially higher threshold.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).