discuss the performance component of an ineffectiveness claim prior to the prejudice component, there is no reason for a court deciding such a claim to approach the inquiry in the same order or to address both components if a defendant makes an insufficient showing on one of them. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052. A court, therefore, need not determine the objective reasonableness of trial counsel’s conduct before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of counsel’s alleged failures. Id. “If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.” Id. [¶ 49] Here, trial counsel’s conduct and the trial court’s evidentiary ruling did not (8th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1094, 124 S.Ct. 970,
holding in the context of a plea that the strickland prejudice prong requires a defendant to demonstrate a reasonable probability that but for counsels errors he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt holding that the defendant did not show prejudice to support ineffective assistance of counsel because any evidentiary error was harmless holding that the prejudice prong in strickland was not satisfied because counsels failure to raise an evidentiary issue would not have altered the result of the proceedings because the erroneous admission of the evidence would have constituted harmless error holding that the defendant could not establish prejudice for trial counsels failure to hire an expert when the experts testimony would not have changed the nature of the states evidence