concluding that counsel’s conduct was not unreviewable trial strategy when “it appears that the cellphone- 14 record evidence was not obtained because trial counsel did not follow up on information received and did not perform the necessary steps to successfully execute on his main theory of the case”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that counsel’s conduct was not unreviewable trial strategy when “it appears that the cellphone- 14 record evidence was not obtained because trial counsel did not follow up on information received and did not perform the necessary steps to successfully execute on his main theory of the case”
- concluding that defendant was entitled to postconviction evidentiary hearing on claim that he received ineffective assistance due to attorney’s inattention during trial preparation
- noting that “almost any failing by a trial counsel contains components that could be articulated as a decision or a choice” and suggesting that trial strategy should be treated “as a factor that [appellate courts] use to assess ineffective assistance claims,” not as “an impregnable barrier to [such] claims”
- stating that the extent of any investigation is a part of trial strategy, and includes whether to interview and call prospective witnesses, and should not be readily second-guessed
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DIETZEN, J.
(dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Chief Justice Lorie Gildea.