ineffective assistance claim in District of Columbia

2017In short, we agree that Mr. Turner’s trial counsel was not obligated to inform Mr. Turner of the potential employment consequences of a conviction and his decision to testify. 14 The Prejudice Prong of Padilla/Strickland Since we conclude that Mr. Martin’s representation was not constitutionally deficient, we need not address Mr. Turner’s arguments regarding prejudice. 15 See *956 Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 697 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (“[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim to ... address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient sho

2017In short, we agree that Mr. Turner’s trial counsel was not obligated to inform Mr. Turner of the potential employment consequences of a conviction and his decision to testify. 14 The Prejudice Prong of Padilla/Strickland Since we conclude that Mr. Martin’s representation was not constitutionally deficient, we need not address Mr. Turner’s arguments regarding prejudice. 15 See *956 Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 697 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 (“[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim to ... address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient sho

2023See Lambright v. Ryan, 698 F.3d 808, 820 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that Bittaker extends to protected information that became part of the public record during an ineffective assistance hearing because to hold otherwise would make the protective order “practically useless”).

2023See Lambright v. Ryan, 698 F.3d 808, 820 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that Bittaker extends to protected information that became part of the public record during an ineffective assistance hearing because to hold otherwise would make the protective order “practically useless”).

2003See Miller v. Avirom, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 367, 369-370 , 384 F.2d 319, 321-322 (1967).

2003See Miller v. Avirom, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 367, 369-370 , 384 F.2d 319, 321-322 (1967).

1998See Ramsey v. United States, 569 A.2d 142, 146 (D.C.1990) (finding appellant free to pursue his ineffectiveness claim in a § 23-110 motion when appellant pled guilty on advice of counsel, thereby precluding a direct appeal, and was represented by the same counsel at a subsequent probation revocation hearing where counsel’s ineffectiveness was raised).

1993The court has identified three categories of claims that warrant summary dismissal: “(1) vague and conclusory allegations, (2) palpably incredible claims, and (3) assertions that would not merit relief even if true.” Ramsey v. United States, 569 A.2d 142, 147 (D.C.1990) (citations omitted).

2006For example, in Jeffrey v. United States, 892 A.2d 1122 (D.C.2006), we declared: ‘While the appellant could not bring his § 23-110 claim in the Superior Court because he did not meet the custody requirement under the statute, this court is not precluded from reviewing the appellant’s ineffective assistance claim as part of a direct appeal, so long as that review is confined to the record.” Id. at 1126 (citing Mack, supra, 570 A.2d at 785-86 ).

2006For example, in Jeffrey v. United States, 892 A.2d 1122 (D.C.2006), we declared: ‘While the appellant could not bring his § 23-110 claim in the Superior Court because he did not meet the custody requirement under the statute, this court is not precluded from reviewing the appellant’s ineffective assistance claim as part of a direct appeal, so long as that review is confined to the record.” Id. at 1126 (citing Mack, supra, 570 A.2d at 785-86 ).

2023That is “because ‘the trial judge, who has seen the defense attorney in action and watched the evidence unfold, is in [the best] . . . situation . . . to determine whether there is any appreciable possibility that a hearing could establish . . . constitutionally defective representation.’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Sykes v. United States, 585 A.2d 1335, 1340 (D.C. 1991)).

2023See id. 32 While we do not need to address prejudice in light of our conclusion above, see supra n.10, we note briefly that even if Mr. Smith’s attorneys had been deficient in failing to call Detective Maupin, this deficiency was not prejudicial.

2023Id. at 698; see also Cosio v. United States, 927 A.2d 1106, 1123 (D.C. 2007) (en banc).

2015See Brown, 934 A.2d at 943 .

2014See Smith v. Pollin, 194 F.2d 349, 350 (D.C.Cir.1952).

2005“Because the second motion stated an identical legal basis for relief — ineffective assistance of trial counsel — and because [appellant] demonstrates no cause for and prejudice from his failure to raise this ineffective assistance claim in his first 23-110 motion, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the second motion without a hearing.” Dob-son, 815 A.2d at 758 (emphasis added; citation omitted). 4 Without a showing of cause and prejudice, appellant is entitled to no more than one bite at the ineffective assistance apple.

2003See Minor v. United States, 647 A.2d 770, 776 (D.C.1994) (holding that trial court did not abuse discretion in denying, without a hearing, second 23-110 motion as second or successive motion for similar relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel).

2003See Minor v. United States, 647 A.2d 770, 776 (D.C.1994) (holding that trial court did not abuse discretion in denying, without a hearing, second 23-110 motion as second or successive motion for similar relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel).

1997The critical inquiry is whether, for whatever reason, counsel’s performance was deficient and whether that deficiency prejudiced the defendant.” Berry v. King, 765 F.2d 451, 454 (5th Cir.1985) (emphasis in original). 8 Garris’s pro se motion sets forth several conclusory allegations. 9 However, neither those allegations nor the others raised during his D.C.Code § 23-110 (1996 Repl.) hearing, or discussed on appeal, are supported by credible evidence.

1993Although hearings on § 23-110 motions are particularly appropriate where the movant alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, Smith v. United States, 608 A.2d 129, 131 (D.C.1992), “an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance claim is not compelled in every case.” Gray v. United States, 617 A.2d 521, 523 (D.C.1992).

1993Although hearings on § 23-110 motions are particularly appropriate where the movant alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, Smith v. United States, 608 A.2d 129, 131 (D.C.1992), “an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance claim is not compelled in every case.” Gray v. United States, 617 A.2d 521, 523 (D.C.1992).

1992The movant’s “only burden, prior to hearing, is adequately to allege facts which, if demonstrated, would establish ineffective assistance of counsel.” Johnson v. United States, 385 A.2d 742, 744 (D.C.1978) (footnote omitted). • On the other hand, an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance claim is not compelled in every case.

1992In Pettaway v. United States, 390 A.2d 981, 983-984 (D.C.1978), we held that in order to uphold the denial of a § 23-110 motion without a hearing, this court “should be able to say ‘that under no circumstances could the petitioner establish facts warranting relief.’ ” Id. at 983-984 (citation omitted).

1981See, e. g., Tillery v. United States, D.C.App., 419 A.2d 970, 972 (1980); Johnson v. United States, D.C.App., 413 A.2d 499, 502 (1980); Wright v. United States, D.C.App., 387 A.2d 582, 586 (1978).

1981See, e. g., Tillery v. United States, D.C.App., 419 A.2d 970, 972 (1980); Johnson v. United States, D.C.App., 413 A.2d 499, 502 (1980); Wright v. United States, D.C.App., 387 A.2d 582, 586 (1978).

1981In Angarano v. United States, D.C.App., 312 A.2d 295 , 298 n.5 (1973), rehearing denied, 329 A.2d 453 (1974) (en banc), we adopted the test of Bruce v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 336 , 379 F.2d 113 (1967), that, to establish an ineffective assistance claim, a defendant must show “both that there has been gross incompetence of counsel and that this in effect blotted out the essence of a substantial defense either in the District Court or on appeal.” Id. at 339-40 , 379 F.2d at 116-17 (footnotes omitted).

1981In Angarano v. United States, D.C.App., 312 A.2d 295 , 298 n.5 (1973), rehearing denied, 329 A.2d 453 (1974) (en banc), we adopted the test of Bruce v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 336 , 379 F.2d 113 (1967), that, to establish an ineffective assistance claim, a defendant must show “both that there has been gross incompetence of counsel and that this in effect blotted out the essence of a substantial defense either in the District Court or on appeal.” Id. at 339-40 , 379 F.2d at 116-17 (footnotes omitted).