failure to obtain the boots and make them available during pre-trial discovery, thereby leading to their exclusion, amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. Hooks, 19 P.3d at 306-07, 318. The OCCA resolved these claims on the merits. As to the due process claim, the OCCA concluded the trial court erred in excluding Hooks’s boots as a discovery sanction. Id. at 306-07. It concluded, however, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the prosecution connected Hooks to the crime through DNA and palm print evidence. Id. at 307. For that very same reason, the OCCA determined Hooks was not entitled to relief on his claim of ineffective assistance because he could not satisfy Strickland’s prejudice prong. Id. at 318; cf. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (<HOLDING>). On appeal to this court, Hooks asserts the
holding that to establish prejudice there must be a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different holding that to show prejudice in a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel the petitioner must show a reasonable probability that but for counsels errors the result of the proceeding would have been different holding that in order to show prejudice defendant must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different holding that to establish prejudice sufficient to warrant finding of ineffective assistance the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different holding that to satisfy the prejudice prong a petitioner must establish that but for counsels errors there is a reasonable probabil ity the result of the proceeding would have been different