context: Even assuming that Petitioner's trial counsel engaged in conduct that was deficient under Padilla such that the trial court's conclusion that Petitioner failed to satisfy the first Strickland prong was contrary to, or reflected an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, Petitioner's claim nonetheless fails because he has not demonstrated prejudice.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 466 U.S. 697, 697
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that, "[i]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed"
citation_a.sentence: See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (holding that, “[i]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed”). “To determine whether the decision to proceed to trial rather than plead guilty would have been rational, courts first look to the weight of the evidence against the petitioner.”
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 2010 WL 1645055, at *4
citation_b.parenthetical: noting that "the Second Circuit has often rejected ineffectiveness claims by determining that, in view of the strength of the prosecution's case, the defendant is unable to establish prejudice"
citation_b.sentence: Francis, 2013 WL 673868, at *4; see also Boakye v. United States, No. 09 Civ. 8217(RWS), 2010 WL 1645055, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 2010) (noting that “the Second Circuit has often rejected ineffectiveness claims by determining that, in view of the strength of the prosecution’s case, the defendant is unable to establish prejudice”).