he hired to investigate Petitioner’s primary defenses. (Mot. for Stay at 10-11, Pg. ID 7015-16.) According to Respondent, the failure of the investigator to complete the report prior to trial was not significant because Petitioner “never produced [the final report] or even alleged that it contained anything but what the investigator had already told [defense] counsel — that he found nothing to assist [Petitioner].” (Id.) (emphasis in original.) That criticism confuses the issue before the Court. The Court was not adjudicating a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel which would have required a showing that the lack of a final written report ultimately had an impact on the result at trial. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Instead, the Court was evaluating the
holding that to show prejudice in a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel the petitioner must show a reasonable probability that but for counsels errors the result of the proceeding would have been different holding that to succeed on an ineffective assistance claim a defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different holding that ineffective assistance of counsel occurs when there is deficient performance and prejudice which is a reasonable probability that but for counsels unprofessional errors the result of the proceeding would have been different holding that for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to be established a defendant must show that but for counsels error the outcome of his proceedings would have been different holding that a defendant must show actual prejudice to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim