What is Ineffective Assistance of Counsel?
If you were convicted of a DUI or any other criminal offense in Colorado, it is critical to begin thinking about potential ways of appealing the conviction. Options for appeal will depend entirely on the facts of the case and any factual issues that arose during your trial or any mistakes or errors that might have occurred in the process. In some cases, appeals are granted when new evidence comes to light that can exonerate you. One potential option for an appeal is raising the issue of “ineffective assistance of counsel.” If you want to argue that you had “ineffective assistance of counsel” in order to appeal your conviction, you will essentially be arguing that your lawyer was so far below the standard of a reasonable attorney that your conviction should be overturned.
Our Denver criminal defense attorneys can explain “ineffective assistance of counsel” in more detail, and we are here to assist you with your criminal appeal if you believe your trial court lawyer did not properly defend you against the charges you faced.
Appealing with “Ineffective Assistance of Counsel” in Colorado State and Federal Criminal Cases
The specific elements and evidence you will need for proving ineffective assistance of counsel may depend in part on whether you were convicted of a criminal offense in a Colorado state court or a federal court. Many criminal offenses are charged under state law and thus are heard in state courts, especially DUI or DUI-D cases. At the same time, there are various circumstances in which certain offenses may be charged under federal law, such as drug cases involving the crossing of state lines.
In either case, the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel arises out of case law and has two primary components whether you are appealing a state or federal case, which we will explain below.
Case Law on “Ineffective Assistance of Counsel”
The US Supreme Court ruled in the case Strickland v. Washington (1984) that, for a court to determine that there was ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant has the burden of showing “first that the counsel’s performance was deficient and, second, that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.” The Court is clear that the “proper standard for judging attorney performance is that of reasonably effective assistance, considering all the circumstances,” and to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel appeal, a defendant “must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
In the Colorado case People v. Alexander (2005), the court cites the standard in Strickland and adds to it. In that case, the court underscores that “both deficient performance and prejudice” must be proven, and then explains how a defendant can prove prejudice: “To prove prejudice, a defendant must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s ineffective assistance, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
In other words, you have a two-part test to prove: 1) “your lawyer must have failed to follow professional standards while representing you,” and 2) there was a “reasonable probability that your lawyer’s poor representation negatively affected the outcome of your case,” according to Columbia Law School.
Contact a Denver Criminal Appeals Lawyer
If you were convicted of a criminal offense and need assistance with an appeal, contact one of the experienced Denver criminal appeals attorneys at DeChant Law today.
Sources:
casetext.com/case/people-v-alexander-406
supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/668/
jlm.law.columbia.edu/files/2017/05/24.-Ch.-12.pdf
