Carrillo

facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 19 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The Court determines whether the state court unreasonably applied clearly- established federal law by asking if the state court’s application was “objectively unreasonable.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 409 (2000). “[A] federal habeas court may overturn a state court’s application of federal law only if it is so erroneous that there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court’s decision conflicts with this Court’s precedents.” Nevada v. Jackson, 569 U.S. 505, 508–09 (2013) (cleaned up). Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief for violation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. “When a convicted defendant complains of the ineffectiveness of standard of reasonableness.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88 (1984). “[A]ny deficiencies in counsel’s performance must be prejudicial to the defense in order to constitute ineffective assistance under the Constitution.” Id. at 692. Thus, Petitioner also must demonstrate there exists a reasonable probability the…