In South Dakota, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are challenged in three areas: 1) trial counsel ineffectiveness  2) appellate counsel ineffectiveness  and, 3) plea counsel ineffectiveness. These areas of ineffectiveness contain common requirements. First, a defendant must prove that counsel’s representation fell below ordinary attorney representation. Second, the defendant must prove their case was harmed in some manner due to counsel’s conduct. The case of Strickland v. Washington, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984) provides excellent guidance when challenging any ineffectiveness claim.

The prejudicial component is what differs most between trial, appellate and plea counsel’s ineffectiveness. Generally, establishing trial counsel prejudice requires a defendant to prove that had counsel been effective, the outcome of the trial or sentence would have been different.

For appellate counsel, prejudice can be established by proving an attorney abandoned clearly stronger issues in comparison to issues which were presented in the appellate brief. The case of Smith v. Robbins, 120 S.Ct. 746 (2000) provides excellent guidance when challenging the ineffectiveness of appellate counsel.

For a defendant who entered into a plea agreement, the person usually must establish that had counsel been effective, the plea agreement wouldn’t have been accepted and the defendant would have instead proceeded to trial. The case of Hill v. Lockhart, 106 S.Ct. 366 (1985) provides excellent guidance when challenging the ineffectiveness of counsel surrounding the acceptance of a plea agreement.

Now, let’s identify where you can find the state’s requirement for challenging counsel’s ineffectiveness in each of these three areas.

Ineffective assistance of trial counsel

For a criminal defendant in South Dakota to be successful in obtaining relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner must prove: 1) that counsel did not provide reasonably effective assistance  and, 2) that counsel’s deficient performance caused prejudice. If a South Dakota defendant fails to establish either requirement when presenting his or her ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the court is not obligated to examine the other requirement. See: Legrand v. Weber, 855 N.W.2d 121 (S.D. 2014).

To meet the requirements of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant is required to show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Even if counsel failed to perform within professional norms, a defendant must still show that he or she was prejudiced as a result of counsel’s deficient performance. An error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment. See: McDonough v. Weber, 589 N.W.2d 26 (S.D. 2015).

To demonstrate prejudice for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must show there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. See: Dillon v. Weber, 855 N.W.2d 121 (S.D. 2014).

A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is generally not considered on direct appeal. It is through post-conviction proceedings that a sufficient record can be made to allow an appropriate review. See: State v. Peterson, 515 N.W.2d 687 (S.D. 1994).

Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel in South Dakota, the defendant must show: 1) that counsel’s performance was deficient  and, 2) that the petitioner was prejudiced by appellate counsel’s deficient performance. See: Lykken v. Class, 561 N.W.2d 302 (S.D. 1997).

When analyzing the performance of appellate counsel, it’s important to recognize that an attorney is not required to argue every possible issue on appeal. An appellate attorney need not, and should not, raise every non-frivolous claim. Rather, counsel should consider all available issues and present the claims which maximize the likelihood of appellate success.

Ineffective assistance of plea counsel

To establish ineffective assistance of plea counsel in South Dakota, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that counsel’s deficient performance caused prejudice. The prejudice requirement can be satisfied by establishing there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he or she would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. See: Lien v. Class, 574 N.W.2d 601 (S.D. 1998).

To learn more about presenting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, I encourage you to read my post titled, What is ineffective assistance of counsel?

What legal book helps present an ineffective assistance of counsel claim?

The Colossal Book of Criminal Citations has a complete section filled with case references to help a defendant support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. There are also subsections providing case citations specific for trial, appellate, and post conviction relief counsel. With over 120 topically organized sections, nearly every defendant will find substantive case references to help identify and detail the acts or omissions wherein counsel may have performed deficiently.

The Colossal Book of Criminal Citations will also help a defendant before and during the criminal trial phase itself. Every criminal defendant should be active in their case’s progression and presentation. By becoming familiar with the many topics covered in this book, a defendant can ensure that counsel is functioning in an effective manner before a jury determination is ever rendered. Buy now