How have the courts dealt with allegations of ineffective assistance in a sexual assault case?

Vargas next claims that counsel's lack of preparation for trial and experience in rape cases resulted in a violation of the Sixth Amendment. Before the commencement of the trial, counsel requested a continuance because he was not ready for trial and was waiting for a certain laboratory analysis. The state trial court denied the request, but made sure that the defense had ample time to prepare its case. The laboratory analysis requested by the defense was ordered and was examined at trial. Further, counsel's lack of experience alone does not indicate incompetence. See United States v. Mouzin, 785 F.2d 682, 697-98 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 985 (1986). Thus, Vargas suffered no prejudice. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687; see also United States v. Olson, 925 F.2d 1170, 1173-74 (9th Cir.1991) (holding no ineffective assistance where trial counsel lacked experience, failed to make pretrial motions, and allegedly prepared witnesses inadequately).