a claim of ineffective assistance, Hooks must show his counsel’s performance “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and “the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Review of counsel’s performance under Strickland’s first prong is highly deferential: “counsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment.” Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. To be deficient, the performance must be “outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.” Id. In other words, “it must have been completely unreasonable, not merely wrong.” Boyd v. Ward, 179 F.3d 904, 914 (10th Cir.1999); see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (<HOLDING>). As for Strickland’s prejudice prong, Hooks
holding that to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel a defendant must demonstrate that counsel was constitutionally deficient and as a result defendant was prejudiced holding that to demonstrate deficient performance a petitioner must show counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed a defendant by the sixth amendment recognizing that the sixth amendment guarantees a defendant the right to counsel and the right to waive counsel holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial holding that the defendant could not show deficient performance if the evidence the defendant claims counsel should have sought to exclude was admissible