appellate counsel.” The post-conviction state court further concluded that Wildman’s “rights were fully protected” and he “was not denied any rights under the state or federal constitution that would entitle him to post-conviction relief.” Wildman asserts that the fact that his trial counsel retained an expert to assist in his second “felon-in-possession” trial, but did not retain any experts to testify during his first trial on the other charges, required the state court to make further inquiry. However, Wildman had the burden of establishing before the state court that trial counsel should have reasonably retained a ballistics or arson expert in the first trial, and that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to do so. See Laboa v. Calderon, 224 F.3d 972, 981 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Trial counsel acted reasonably by retaining
recognizing that the burden of proof is an essential element of the claim itself and that one who asserts a claim has the burden of proof that normally comes with it holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant holding petitioner has the burden of proof under the strickland test holding petitioner demonstrates actual and substantial prejudice by proving a claim under strickland holding that when counsel denied the petitioner the right to appeal neither the strickland prejudice prong nor the harmlesserror test is appropriate