 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Samskar v. State8/11/2004
to Mr. Samskar." Because an attorney's decision based on tactical considerations is presumed to be competent, and because Samskar failed to present any evidence that his appellate attorney's choices were incompetent, Judge Brown could reasonably find that Samskar had not rebutted the presumption that his attorney's tactical choices were sound.
Finally, Samskar argues that his trial counsel committed a number of errors that, when taken together, were serious enough for the court to grant post-conviction relief. Samskar's application for post-conviction relief states that he identified thirty-nine errors committed by his trial and appellate counsel, but it discusses only four specific errors not discussed elsewhere in his application. Those errors are: failure to argue that there was insufficient evidence to establish that one of the victims was in fear of imminent serious physical injury, failure to move for a mistrial "based on the possible taint to the jury of testimony concerning his bail hearing," failure to move for a mistrial based on "the possible taint to the jury of testimony by police officers of prior contacts between [Samskar] and police," and failure of trial counsel to be "properly prepared with jury instructions."
Once again, Samskar addresses the same claims that he raised in the superior court. The discussion of these issues in Samskar's appellate brief is identical to the discussion of these issues in Samskar's application for post-conviction relief. Samskar's brief does not address Judge Brown's ruling. On this basis alone, we can rule that Samskar has waived this issue.
Furthermore, Judge Brown found that Samskar had not presented sufficient evidence to support his claims, and our review of the record supports this finding. Samskar's trial attorney addressed the four identified deficiencies in his affidavit. He said he had no specific recollection of three of the claims. With regard to the fourth claim -- that he was not "properly prepared with jury instructions" -- he noted that Judge Brown gave all the lesser-included instructions he had requested. Given this record, we agree with Judge Brown that Samskar presented insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that his trial attorney acted competently. Judge Brown thus did not abuse his discretion in rejecting Samskar's claim that his trial attorney's cumulative errors justified relief.
Conclusion
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|