ineffective assistance claim in South Dakota

2023Ineffective Assistance of Counsel [¶41.] “[A]bsent exceptional circumstances, we will not address an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal.” State v. Vortherms, 2020 S.D. 67, ¶ 30 , 952 N.W.2d 113 , 120–21 (quoting State v. Golliher-Weyer, 2016 S.D. 10 , ¶ 8, 875 N.W.2d 28, 31 ).

2022Under the circumstances, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Alvarez’s motion on the basis that he could not understand the plea agreement. 9 Ineffective Assistance of Counsel [¶34.] “[A]bsent exceptional circumstances, we will not address an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal.” State v. Vortherms, 2020 S.D. 67, ¶ 30 , 952 N.W.2d 113 , 120–21 (quoting State v. Golliher-Weyer, 2016 S.D. 10 , ¶ 8, 875 N.W.2d 28, 31 ).

2024He also argues that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced him because, in his view, but for the errors, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different. 2 [¶39.] It is well settled that “[a]bsent exceptional circumstances, we will not address an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal.” State v. Dillon, 2001 S.D. 97 , ¶ 28, 632 N.W.2d 37, 48 .

2012She alleges defense counsel was deficient for three reasons: 1) he provided virtually no representation during her motion to withdraw her guilty but mentally ill pleas; 2) he did not ask for a continuance or provide her an opportunity to review the entire PSI; and 3) he failed to fully examine potential witnesses and assess her mental health status. [¶ 36.] “Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims generally are not considered on direct appeal.” State v. Thomas, 2011 S.D. 15, ¶ 23 , 796 N.W.2d 706, 714 (citing State v. Arable, 2003 S.D. 57 , ¶ 20, 663 N.W.2d 250, 256 ). ‘“The preferred arena f

1988The United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), set forth the standard to employ when examining an ineffective assistance claim.

1988The United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), set forth the standard to employ when examining an ineffective assistance claim.

2021Habeas corpus proceedings are “[t]he preferred arena for an ineffective assistance claim” primarily because the “attorneys charged with ineffectiveness can explain or defend their actions and strategies, and thus a more complete picture of what occurred is available for review.” State v. Arabie, 2003 S.D. 57 , ¶ 20, 663 N.W.2d 250 , 256–57.

2012She alleges defense counsel was deficient for three reasons: 1) he provided virtually no representation during her motion to withdraw her guilty but mentally ill pleas; 2) he did not ask for a continuance or provide her an opportunity to review the entire PSI; and 3) he failed to fully examine potential witnesses and assess her mental health status. [¶ 36.] “Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims generally are not considered on direct appeal.” State v. Thomas, 2011 S.D. 15, ¶ 23 , 796 N.W.2d 706, 714 (citing State v. Arable, 2003 S.D. 57 , ¶ 20, 663 N.W.2d 250, 256 ). ‘“The preferred arena f

2020A better statement of the rule is that we will make an exception to our reluctance to address an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal only where counsel “was so ‘ineffective and [the] representation so casual that the trial record evidences a manifest usurpation of [the defendant’s] constitutional rights.’” Id. (quoting State v. Phipps, 318 N.W.2d 128, 131 (S.D. 1982)). -13- #28742 hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.”). [¶30.] Here, rather than construing Wilson’s argument as a

1989This court has created an exception where the representation was so “ineffective and counsel’s representation so casual that the trial record evidences a manifest usurpation of appellant’s constitutional rights[.]” State v. Phipps, 318 N.W.2d 128, 131 (S.D.1982); Aliberti, supra. The ineffective assistance claim must rise to the level of plain error on direct appeal.

2026But even if we were to review the ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal, we have already determined that any error in admitting the hearsay and other act evidence in the Interview and Report was not prejudicial. [¶46.] “[T]o be entitled to relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both that his counsel provided ineffective assistance and that he was prejudiced as a result.” State v. Stevens, 2024 S.D. 3, ¶ 31 , 2 N.W.3d 372 , 382 (citation omitted).

2020A better statement of the rule is that we will make an exception to our reluctance to address an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal only where counsel “was so ‘ineffective and [the] representation so casual that the trial record evidences a manifest usurpation of [the defendant’s] constitutional rights.’” Id. (quoting State v. Phipps, 318 N.W.2d 128, 131 (S.D. 1982)). -13- #28742 hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.”). [¶30.] Here, rather than construing Wilson’s argument as a

2020A better statement of the rule is that we will make an exception to our reluctance to address an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal only where counsel “was so ‘ineffective and [the] representation so casual that the trial record evidences a manifest usurpation of [the defendant’s] constitutional rights.’” Id. (quoting State v. Phipps, 318 N.W.2d 128, 131 (S.D. 1982)). -13- #28742 hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.”). [¶30.] Here, rather than construing Wilson’s argument as a

2019The claim is not meritorious, in any event, either as a separate claim or an ineffective assistance claim. [¶64.] “[T]he proper standard for determining when a prospective juror may be excused for cause because of his or her views on capital punishment . . . is whether the juror’s views would ‘prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.’” Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 , 105 S. Ct. 844, 852 , 83 L.

2019The claim is not meritorious, in any event, either as a separate claim or an ineffective assistance claim. [¶64.] “[T]he proper standard for determining when a prospective juror may be excused for cause because of his or her views on capital punishment . . . is whether the juror’s views would ‘prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.’” Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 , 105 S. Ct. 844, 852 , 83 L.

2019Ed. 2d 841 (1985) (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 , 100 S. Ct. 2521, 2526 , 65 L.

2019Ed. 2d 841 (1985) (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 , 100 S. Ct. 2521, 2526 , 65 L.

2002Davi v. Class, 2000 SD 30, ¶ 17 , 609 N.W.2d 107, 112 . [¶ 12.] In examining the first prong of an ineffective assistance claim under Strickland , we have held: When a convicted defendant complains of the ineffectiveness of counsel’s assistance, the defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.

2002Davi v. Class, 2000 SD 30, ¶ 17 , 609 N.W.2d 107, 112 . [¶ 12.] In examining the first prong of an ineffective assistance claim under Strickland , we have held: When a convicted defendant complains of the ineffectiveness of counsel’s assistance, the defendant must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.

2001In State v. Dillon, 2001 SD 97 , 632 N.W.2d 37 , we said that, "absent exceptional circumstances,” we would "not address an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal.” Id. at ¶ 28 (citing State v. Hays, 1999 SD 89 ¶ 14 , 598 N.W.2d 200, 203 ).

2001In State v. Dillon, 2001 SD 97 , 632 N.W.2d 37 , we said that, "absent exceptional circumstances,” we would "not address an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal.” Id. at ¶ 28 (citing State v. Hays, 1999 SD 89 ¶ 14 , 598 N.W.2d 200, 203 ).

2000Siers, 1998 SD 77, ¶ 12 , 581 N.W.2d at 495 .

2000Siers, 1998 SD 77, ¶ 12 , 581 N.W.2d at 495 .

1996Based upon these considerations, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the defendant’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a mental examination of the defendant. *583 [¶ 19] Again, in Bainter v. Trickey, 932 F.2d 713 (8th Cir.1991), the Eighth Circuit reviewed an ineffective assistance claim based upon counsel’s failure to properly investigate and raise the defendant’s psychological condition as an .issue at trial.

1996Gross v. Solem, 446 N.W.2d 49, 51 (S.D.1989) (citations omitted). [¶ 18] In Stanley v. Lockhart, 941 F.2d 707 (8th Cir.1991), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed an ineffective assistance claim similarly based upon counsel’s failure to request a mental examination of the defendant before his entry of a guilty plea.