The right to legal representation is a fundamental aspect of the American criminal justice system. When facing criminal charges, individuals in Alaska have the right to an attorney who defends their interests and protects their rights by providing competent representation. However, not all legal representation is effective, and in some cases, counsel’s action or inaction may be found to be ineffective. In this blog post, we’ll delve into the concept of what Ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) is, and the legal standards Alaska uses to determine whether trial, appellate, or plea agreement counsel’s representation was effective.
What is Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC) in Alaska?
Ineffective assistance of counsel, commonly known as “IAC,” is a legal term that refers to the inadequate performance of an attorney representing a defendant in a criminal case. It is a violation of the defendant’s right to counsel, which guarantees the right to a fair trial with effective legal representation. When an attorney’s performance falls below the standards considered reasonable, and this deficiency results in prejudice to the defendant’s case, it can be grounds for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Alaska’s Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC) Standard Regarding Trial Attorneys
Alaska’s ineffective assistance of trial counsel standard is described in Risher v. State, 523 P.2d 421 (1974). To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the defendant has the burden of satisfying a two-part test:
Deficient Performance: First, the defendant must show that his counsel’s performance fell below the “range of competence displayed by one of ordinary training and skill in the criminal law.” Courts typically consider whether the trial attorney made errors that a competent attorney would not have made, such as failing to investigate crucial evidence, providing incorrect legal advice, or not adequately preparing for trial.
Prejudice: Second, the defendant must show that this incompetence had an adverse impact on the case that contributed to the defendant’s conviction. The defendant has the burden of proving his counsel’s lack of competence by “clear and convincing” evidence.
Whenever there is a right to appointed counsel, there is also a right to effective assistance of counsel. Once a defendant has demonstrated the right to counsel exists, the defendant must demonstrate his or her counsel did not perform “as well as a lawyer with ordinary training and skill” in the specific area of law and that “the conduct of counsel … contributed to” the defendant’s adverse outcome of the particular proceeding.
Alaska’s Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC) Standard Regarding Appellate Attorneys
Alaska’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel standard is detailed in Lindeman v. State, 244 P.3d 1151 (Alaska App. 2011). To establish a prima facie case that appellate counsel was ineffective, the defendant must show: 1) that an abandoned issue is significantly stronger than the issues that were raised in the appeal 2) that the appellate attorney had no valid tactical reason for failing to include this particular issue and, 3) that, if the proposed issue had been included, there is a reasonable possibility that the outcome of the appeal would have been different.
Understanding the Appellate Attorney’s Responsibility
Appellate attorneys are not required to raise every arguable issue or every possible nonfrivolous claim (not even those specifically requested by the defendant), they are expected to explore and select the claims most likely to succeed on appeal. Smith v. Robbins, 120 S.Ct. 746 (2000). Courts consider the relative merit of the omitted issue, in relation to any appealed issues, in order to determine whether appellate counsel’s performance was adequate. In the context of ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claims, the court examines whether the appellate attorney’s failure to raise the omitted issue prejudiced the defendant. This requires the defendant show that there could have been a specific issue raised on appeal that would have resulted in the appellate court declaring a reversible error.
Alaska’s Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC) Standard Regarding Plea Agreement Attorneys
Alaska’s ineffective assistance of plea agreement counsel standard is detailed in Arnold v. State, 685 P.2d 1261 (Alaska App. 1984). Under Alaska law, a defendant is entitled to withdraw a guilty plea if the defendant can prove by clear and convincing evidence that they received ineffective assistance of counsel from the attorney who advised them to enter the plea. The test for ineffective assistance of plea counsel also has two prongs:
Deficient Performance: First, the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the attorney failed to provide legal assistance within the range of competence expected from criminal law practitioners.
Prejudice: Second, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable possibility that the attorney’s lack of competence affected the outcome of the proceedings.
My Final Thoughts
When defendants raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim in Alaska, the deficiency and prejudice requirement articulated in Risher is the standard used to analyze the claim. If an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim is raised, the three elements articulated in Lindeman are the standards applied to analyze the claim. When defendants raise a a claim of ineffective assistance of plea agreement counsel, the deficiency and prejudice requirement articulated in Arnold is the standard used to analyze the claim. Regardless of the proceeding wherein ineffectiveness is alleged to have occurred, both deficient performance and prejudice must be established by the defendant.
If you, or someone you know, will be pursuing any type of ineffective assistance of counsel claim in Alaska, our book, The Colossal Book of Criminal Citations, is a crucial resource in the pursuit of justice. Order your copy today, or on behalf of someone incarcerated.