To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the defendant must show that the attorney’s performance was deficient and that the defendant was prejudiced by the deficiency. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064-65, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693-94 (1984); Hassett v. State, 127 Idaho 313, 316, 900 P.2d 221, 224 (Ct.App.1995). To establish a deficiency, the applicant has the burden of showing that the attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Aragon v. State, 114 Idaho 758, 760, 760 P.2d 1174, 1176 (1988). To establish prejudice, the applicant must show a reasonable probability that, but for the attorney’s deficient performance, the outcome of the trial would have been different. Aragon, 114 Ida 4 (Ct.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). Thomas argues that his trial attorney’s
holding that district court complied with former rule 32a1 where court asked counsel during sentencing hearing whether circumstances warranted upward departure and counsel responded court rejected defendants argument that notice provided was insufficient and stated that defendant has not shown how he was prejudiced by this notice given how he could have been helped by additional notice or time holding that the defendant insufficiently pled the brady claim because he failed to assert how the evidence was material or how he was prejudiced by the states nondisclo sure holding that an experts report failed to establish the standard of care when it did not clarify how soon is soon  what would be considered an appropriate disposition  and how any other procedure would have reduced delay holding that the defendant did not require advance notice where he could not show how he was prejudiced by late notice or how he could have been helped by additional notice holding that joness application was insufficient because it did not indicate how communication with counsel would have affected trial or how he would have proceeded differently