This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
- The Defendant was convicted of larceny (over $20,000) and non-residential burglary. He appealed his convictions on the grounds that his counsel was ineffective.
Procedural History
- [Not applicable or not found]
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his trial counsel was ineffective, failing to meet the standard of a reasonably competent attorney, and that this ineffectiveness prejudiced the outcome of his case. Additionally, he contended that his counsel was ineffective for not calling a witness who would have provided testimony favorable to the defense.
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant's trial counsel was ineffective in a manner that prejudiced the Defendant's case.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions.
Reasons
-
BUSTAMANTE, Judge (with CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, and J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring): The Court considered the Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the standards set forth in State v. Franklin and State v. Boyer, requiring proof of counsel's deficiency and prejudice to the Defendant. The Court found that the Defendant failed to demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient or that such alleged deficiencies prejudiced his case. The Defendant's additional claim regarding the failure to call a favorable witness was dismissed because it was not developed in the lower court, and thus, not a matter of record for appeal. The Court was not persuaded to remand for an evidentiary hearing based on the Defendant's request, citing the precedent set in State v. Hosteen and State v. Martinez, which express a preference for addressing such claims through habeas corpus proceedings when the appellate record does not establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.