 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rust v. State12/6/2000
he collision so that his blood alcohol level at the time of the collision was significantly less than it was shortly after the accident when he was tested. Although evidence that Rust was drinking while he was driving might have supported the conclusion that his blood alcohol level was lower at the time of the collision than it was later when he was tested, the attorney concluded that evidence that his client had been drinking while driving would have been very damaging.
Judge Souter found that Rust's attorney had made a tactical decision to not move for a continuance or to call an expert witness in order to move to exclude Dr. Propst's testimony and to preserve his point on appeal that Judge Souter had erred in refusing to grant this motion. He also found that Rust's trial attorney had concluded that calling an expert would not have been helpful at trial. Judge Souter concluded that, based on hearing Dr. Propst's testimony at trial and Dr. Hlastala's testimony at the evidentiary hearing, that Dr. Hlastala's testimony did not differ appreciably from Dr. Propst's testimony. He concluded that Rust had not met his burden of proving that trial counsel's tactical decision to not call an expert was ineffective. The judge also found the defense attorney's performance at trial bore ample indicia of ordinary training and skill and that it was highly unlikely that Dr. Hlastala's testimony would have raised reasonable doubt about Rust's guilt.
In order to prove a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, the applicant must satisfy a two-pronged test. "The first prong requires the accused to prove that the performance of trial counsel fell below an objective standard[.]" More specifically, this means that a lawyer in a criminal case, "must perform at least as well as a lawyer with ordinary training and skill in the criminal law." The second prong of the test requires a showing of prejudice. This means that the accused must show that the "lack of competency contributed to the conviction." Or, similarly, the defendant must "create a reasonable doubt that the incompetence contributed to the outcome." When considering the performance of the attorney, one must remember that "the constitutional guarantee of effective assistance of counsel assures only minimal competence . . . it does not require error-free representation." Therefore, to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, "the accused must establish a level of performance that no reasonably competent attorney would provide." This is a difficult barrier to overcome, because trial courts must "apply a strong presumption of competence. An integral component of the presumption of competence is the further presumption that trial counsel's actions were motivated by sound tactical considerations." Furthermore, "if it appears that counsel's actions were undertaken for tactical or strategic reasons, they will be virtually immune from subsequent challenge, even if, in hindsight, the tactic or strategy appears to have been mistaken or unproductive."
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Judge Souter did not err in denying Rust's application for post-conviction relief. The defense attorney testified that his basic decisions were tactical. While other attorneys might have handled the case differently, Rust has not established that his attorney's tactical decisions were unreasonable.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|