determines that the evidence at issue would have been suppressed.” Porter, 130 Idaho at 793, 948 P.2d at 148 (citing Carter v. State, 108 Idaho at 795, 702 P.2d at 833). This statement, standing alone, supports Mathews’s argument that his counsel’s ineffectiveness was settled by this Court’s decision in Mathews II, which determined that a magistrate’s signature is required to validate a search warrant. However, a review of Carter, combined with consideration of the above quoted statement in the context of the Court’s decision in Porter, reveals that Mathews’s use of the statement from Porter misses the mark. In Carter, we recognized the two-pronged test a defendant must meet in order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Carter, 108 Idaho at 795, 702 P.2d at 833 (<HOLDING>). Although the Carter Court held that counsel’s
holding that a defendant must show prejudice resulting from counsels deficient performance to prevail on an ineffectiveassistance claim holding that a habeas petitioner must show that counsels errors  actually prejudiced him recognizing that in order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel a movant must show that he was prejudiced by his counsels performance holding that the cumulative impact of multiple deficiencies in defense counsels performance prejudiced the defendant in a capital trial recognizing that defendant must show 1 that counsels performance was deficient and 2 that counsels errors prejudiced the defense