Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are frequently raised in post-conviction proceedings because the supporting evidence often lies outside the trial record, encompassing what counsel knew, investigated, or advised.

To succeed, these claims must satisfy a two-part test:

• Deficient Performance: Counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
• Prejudice: There is a reasonable probability that, had it not been for counsel’s errors, the outcome of the trial or sentencing would have been different.

Substantial proof is crucial, including client affidavits, obtainable counsel files, investigator notes, and expert opinions, all demonstrating concrete prejudice. Simple disagreement with strategy is insufficient. Ineffective assistance claims are common in post-conviction practice and are subject to rigorous scrutiny.