In Utah, 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 requirements for challenging counsel’s ineffectiveness in each of these three areas.

Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel

For a criminal defendant in Utah to be successful in obtaining relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner must satisfy two requirements: 1) the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient  and, 2) the deficient performance resulted in prejudice to the defendant. If a defendant in Utah fails to establish either requirement when presenting his or her ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the court is not obliged to examine the other requirement. See: State v. Drommond, 469 P.3d 1056 (Utah 2020).

To establish that counsel was deficient, a defendant must overcome the strong presumption that counsel rendered constitutionally sufficient assistance. This may be done by showing that counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms. In other words, a defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy. See: State v. Ring, 424 P.3d 845 (Utah 2018).

The ultimate focus of an ineffectiveness inquiry is on the fundamental fairness of the proceeding whose result is being challenged. The defendant’s burden is to show prejudice, that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

It is not enough for the defendant to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding. Virtually every act or omission of counsel would meet that test, and not every error that conceivably could have influenced the outcome undermines the reliability of the result of the proceeding. The defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See: Ross v. State, 448 P.3d 1203 (Utah 2019).

Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

To establish ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in Utah, the defendant must show: 1) that counsel’s performance was deficient  and, 2) that the petitioner was prejudiced by the deficient performance. See: McCloud v. State, 496 P.3d 179 (Utah 2021).

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 Utah, the defendant must show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced him or her. The prejudice requirement is satisfied by establishing that 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: State v. Martinez, 26 P.3d 203 (Utah 2001).

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?

If you, or someone you know, will be pursuing any type of ineffective assistance of counsel claim in Alabama, 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.