Appellate panel considers remand over sparse written order and effectiveness of counsel in self‑defense case

Summary

In oral argument, appellant's counsel urged the court to reverse or remand, saying trial strategy and the omission of a co-defendant's statement prejudiced a self‑defense claim; the state countered that counsel's joint-defense choice was reasonable and that the post-conviction court's oral rulings may be incorporated, and the panel took the matter under advisement.

An appellate panel heard argument over whether a trial court's written post-conviction order contains the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by statute and whether trial counsel's choice of a joint self-defense strategy deprived the defendant of effective assistance.

The appellant's counsel told the court that self-defense was the "heart" of the case and that the defendant relied on a co-defendant's statement as essential to that defense. Counsel said the trial lawyer pursued a joint-defense approach and did not introduce the co-defendant's statement at trial; that decision, the appellant argued, was deficient or, at minimum, left the defendant unaware that the evidence he expected would not be used, thereby prejudicing his choice to go to trial.

Why it matters: the panel must decide two linked questions that could affect whether the petitioner receives a new…

Appellate panel considers remand over sparse written order and effectiveness of counsel in self‑defense case

Summary

Subscribe to keep reading