observing that "it is sometimes efficacious to address the prejudice prong first since without prejudice there can be no ineffective assistance of counsel”
How later courts described this case
- observing that "it is sometimes efficacious to address the prejudice prong first since without prejudice there can be no ineffective assistance of counsel”
- "Strickland . . . suggest[s] that it is sometimes efficacious to address the prejudice prong first since without prejudice there can be no ineffective assistance of counsel."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BELSON, Senior Judge,
concurring:
I agree that appellant’s motion to recall the mandate should be granted. In view, however, of the discussion of stay away orders and crimes that may be charged upon their violation set forth in this court’s en banc opinion in United States v. Dixon, 598 A.2d 724, 732-733 (D.C.1991), I think it appropriate that the court’s invitation to the parties to submit further briefing should be extended to the prejudice prong of the Strickland/Watson 5 test instead of being limited to the issue of deficient performance of counsel.
APPENDIX
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
No. 86-1512
ROBERT L. GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee.
Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Criminal Division
CR F-527-85
(Hon. Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., Trial Judge) (Submitted July 12, 1988
(Decided July 12, 1988)
Before NEWMAN and BELSON, Associate Judges, and GALLAGHER, Senior Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT
Griffin contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his burglary conviction, and that the court erred in sentencing him. We affirm.
The evidence in its light most favorable to the government is set forth in its brief; we incorporate the same by reference. The evidence was sufficient to prove Burglary I. See generally Massey v. United States, *1180 320 A.2d 296 (D.C.1974). The facts of this case are distinguishable from those in Shelton v. United States, 505 A.2d 767 (D.C.1987), on which Griffin relies. There was no sentencing error. There were separate assault-type offenses against two separate victims. See Davis v. United States, 498 A.2d 242 (D.C.1985). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment appealed from be, and it hereby is, affirmed.
FOR THE COURT:
la/
Richard B. Hoffman
Clerk
. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Watson v. United States, 536 A.2d 1056 (D.C.1987) (en banc), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1010 , 108 S.Ct. 1740 , 100 L.Ed.2d 203 (1988).