“To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant must overcome the strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance by showing: [1] that trial counsel’s performance was deficient; and [2] that he was prejudiced by the deficient performance.” (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)) (quotation omitted; brackets original)
How later courts described this case
- “To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant must overcome the strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance by showing: [1] that trial counsel’s performance was deficient; and [2] that he was prejudiced by the deficient performance.” (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)) (quotation omitted; brackets original)
- “[E]vidence is sufficient to support the aggravating circumstance . . . where a defendant during the continuing course of conduct in which a murder is committed, threatens the life of another and has the apparent ability and means of taking that person’s life.” (first alteration in original) (citation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CHAPEL, Judge,
Concurs in Results.
1 1 I concur in the majority opinion except for those portions which resolve Proposition IX concerning the use of unadjudicated offenses to support the continuing threat ag-gravator and Proposition IV concerning the Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 1866 , claim. I would invalidate the continuing threat aggravator found in this case. However, I would affirm the sentence of death, as there was sufficient evidence to support the other aggravators.