did not suffer prejudice. To establish prejudice, Villagrana must show “that there [was] a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. Although “ineffective assistance claims based on a duty to investigate must be considered in light of the strength of the [State]’s case[,]” Eggleston v. United States, 798 F.2d 374, 376 (9th Cir.1986), Villagrana is unable to establish that there is a reasonable probability that but for the failure to investigate and present the three witnesses, the result of the trial would have been different. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. As Chacon t .1998) (<HOLDING>); Luna v. Cambra, 306 F.3d 954, 961-66 (9th
holding that the prosecutors comments pertaining to the defendants failure to present a certain alibi witness was not improper for it merely challenged the defendants failure to produce a witness who would have corroborated the defendants testimony holding that the claim with regard to the failure to present an alibi was insufficiently pled because the motion did not describe how the alibi witness would have supported the alibi with exculpatory evidence citing jacobs v state 880 so2d 548 fla2004 holding that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim for counsels failure to present the preindictment delay issue was without merit because there was no actual prejudice to the supposed alibi defense as the now unavailable witnesses would not have provided the defendant with an alibi for the time when the murder could have occurred holding that the failure to interview and present alibi witnesses and to admit a third party outofcourt confession to the crime was prejudicial holding that the failure to interview and present alibi witnesses who would have supported the defendants version of events was prejudicial