Anthony Gugliotta v. Silvia Garcia
Opinion
Opinion
facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d). We may not grant relief unless the state court came to a decision that
was objectively unreasonable. Williams v Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 409-10 (2000).
To bring a meritorious IAC claim, Gugliotta must demonstrate his trial
counsel’s deficient performance and resulting prejudice. See Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). We apply “a ‘strong presumption’ that
counsel’s representation was within the ‘wide range’ of reasonable professional
assistance.” Richter, 562 U.S. at 104 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689).
To establish prejudice, Gugliotta must show a reasonable probability that
“but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have
been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 664. “Counsel’s errors must be ‘so serious
as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.’” Richter,
562 U.S. at 104 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687).
Reviewing the California courts’ denial of Gugliotta’s IAC claim, the
-3- “question is whether there is any reasonable argument that counsel satisfied