The right to legal representation is a fundamental aspect of the American criminal justice system. When facing criminal charges, individuals in Hawaii 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 Hawaii uses to determine whether trial, appellate, or plea agreement counsel’s representation was effective.
What is Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC) in Hawaii?
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.
Hawaii’s Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC) Standard Regarding Trial Attorneys
Hawaii’s ineffective assistance of trial counsel standard is described in State v. Antone, 62 Haw. 346 (1980). To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the defendant has the burden of satisfying a two-part test:
Deficient Performance: First, a defendant must show that his trial counsel committed an error or omission reflecting a lack of skill, judgment, or diligence. The applicable standard for assessing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel is whether the assistance provided was “within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.”
Prejudice: Second, the defendant must establish that claimed errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense. To satisfy this second prong, the defendant needs to show a possible impairment, rather than a probable impairment, of a potentially meritorious defense. State v. Aplaca, 74 Haw. 54 (1992).
Hawaii’s Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC) Standard Regarding Appellate Attorneys
Hawaii’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel standard is detailed in Briones v. State, 74 Haw. 442 (1993). The court established that the standard for ineffective assistance at the appellate level “centers on whether counsel informed him or herself enough to present appropriate appealable issues in the first instance” and “an appealable issue is an error or omission resulting in the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense.”
Counsel’s performance need not be errorless. If, however, an appealable issue is omitted as a result of the performance of counsel whose competence fell below that required of attorneys in criminal cases then appellant’s counsel is constitutionally ineffective. Massey v. State, 138 Haw. 135 (Haw. App. 2016).
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.
Hawaii’s Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC) Standard Regarding Plea Agreement Attorneys
Hawaii’s ineffective assistance of plea agreement counsel standard is detailed in Barnett v. State, 91 Haw. 20 (1999). A guilty plea may be withdrawn after the imposition of sentence only if it “is necessary to correct manifest injustice.” Manifest injustice occurs when a defendant makes a plea involuntarily or without knowledge of the direct consequences of the plea.
In order to prove ineffective assistance of plea counsel, a defendant has the burden of showing:
Deficient Performance: First, the defendant must show that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel’s lack of skill, judgment, or diligence.
Prejudice: Second, the defendant must show such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense.
My Final Thoughts
When defendants raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim in Hawaii, the deficiency and prejudice requirement articulated in Antone is the standard used to analyze the claim. If an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim is raised, the deficiency and prejudice requirement articulated in Briones is the standard used to analyze the claim. When defendants raise a a claim of ineffective assistance of plea agreement counsel, the deficiency and prejudice requirement articulated in Barnett 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 Hawaii, 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.