described the videotape as depicting an aggravated sexual assault. The videotape, which clearly depicts all three defendants penetrating the unconscious victim with various objects during the course of the assault, speaks for itself. (Doc. # 9). In that respect, the videotape constitutes dispositive evidence that an aggravated sexual assault occurred. Any effort to characterize the videotape as something other than “aggravated” in nature is simply unsupported and would likely have offended the jury further. Schultze fails to persuade that Thibodeaux’s strategic decision was unsound or to show that he had a meritorious objection to make. It follows that Schultze fails to demonstrate deficient performance or actual prejudice. See Parr v. Quarterman, 472 F.3d 245, 256 (5th Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); Smith v. Puckett, 907 F.2d
holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to present a meritless argument holding counsel was not deficient for declining to make a meritless argument holding trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless issue holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to pursue a meritless claim