iac Tag Archives — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Military ineffective assistance of counsel

February 21, 2023 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

In the context of a court-martial, ineffective assistance of counsel refers to a claim by a military defendant that their defense counsel provided them with legal representation that fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this deficient representation prejudiced the outcome of their case.

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), military defendants have the right to be represented by counsel at trial. If a defendant believes that their defense counsel provided them with ineffective assistance, they can raise this claim on appeal. The standard for evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in a court-martial is the two-part test established in Strickland v. Washington, a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984.

Under the Strickland test, the defendant must show that their counsel’s performance was deficient and that this deficient performance prejudiced the outcome of the trial. Deficient performance means that the attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and prejudice means that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the deficient performance, the outcome of the trial would have been different.

Collateral effects

March 20, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

On 20 March 2012, NMCCA decided United States v. Jones; and in doing so they have answered a question that was not unexpected, but took a little while to come.

In United States v. Miller, 63 M.J. 452 (C.A.A.F. 2006), CAAF decided prospectively that defense counsel must advise a client about the DoD sexual offender registration requirements when negotiating a PTA.

The question is how detailed must the advice be and what about additional state law requirements. There any number of offenses not listed in the current version of DODI 1325.7 where states now require registration.

Post Padilla-Miller

November 10, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Thanks to Sentencing Law & Policy here is a paper that raises some thoughts on IAC for pretrial advice to clients. As we know we won’t get anything solid on that from CAAF a la immigration because Denedo’s case is over. But, . . . .

Post Padilla: Padilla’s Puzzles for Review in State and Federal Courts

Vanderbilt Law Research Paper Series
Vanderbilt University Law School
Nancy J. King
Vanderbilt Law School
Gray Proctor
affiliation not provided to SSRN
Federal Sentencing Reporter, Volume 23, Issue 3 (Feb 2011)

ACCA on IAC

August 20, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

In United States v. Darling, ACCA affirmed because appellant could not establish the prejudice prong of an IAC “claim.” This is worth reading for those cases where the accused is found not guilty after a contested case, but during sentencing there is a concession that the accused was actually guilty. For the defense counsel this case addresses the issues of how to do sentencing and try to get a lower sentence.

Appellate defense counsel initially raised one assignment of error to this court – that appellant’s conviction for uttering checks with intent to defraud was legally and factually insufficient. Upon our initial review, we specified the following issues:

I.

Remember, collateral consequences remember

June 27, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

On Wednesday, ACCA will hear oral argument in United States v. Vargaspuentas, No. ARMY 20091096, on these three interesting issues:

I. WHETHER APPELLANT’S TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL INFORMED HIM HIS GUILTY PLEA MIGHT RESULT IN DEPORTATION.

II. WHETHER COUNSEL’S ADVICE REGARDING DEPORTATION WAS INEFFECTIVE. SEE PADILLA V. KENTUCKY, 08-651 (2010); STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); HILL V. LOCKHART, 474 U.S. 52 (1985).

SCOTUS

June 6, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

SCOTUSBlog has the 3 June 2010 petitions to watch at SCOTUS. Here is an interesting one.

Title: Jones v. Williams
Docket: 09-948
Issue: Whether the Tenth Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) by granting habeas relief for ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargain negotiations to a defendant who was later convicted and sentenced in a fair trial, on the ground that the remedy the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals gave to the defendant was constitutionally inadequate, given that the Supreme Court has not clearly established what remedy, if any, is appropriate for ineffective assistance of counsel in such a case.

Opinion below (10th Circuit, rehearing denied)

Petition for certiorari

Brief in opposition

Petitioner’s reply

The relevant “facts.”

NMCCA has 6 new decisions – 1 reversed for IAC

November 17, 2009 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

NMCCA has issued six new decisions, of which four are merits.

United States v. Maharrey, post-trial delay case.

United States v. Thornton. Appellant raises ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) and sufficiency of the evidence. The findings and sentence are set-aside based on the IAC. The IAC relates to several issues: failure to properly advise on forum; failure to prepare appellant to testify; failure to cross-examine some witnesses. A DuBay (United States v. DuBay, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1986)) hearing was ordered. The military judge found several issues of IAC. The DuBay judge did not agree with all the allegations of IAC.