ineffective assistance of counsel claim in Maryland

2022In Strickland v. Washington, the Supreme Court set out the controlling test for evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment. 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

2022See 6 In contrast, under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), to establish the second prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that trial counsel’s performance resulted in actual prejudice and that but for the errors at issue there would have been a reasonable probability of a different result.

2023The Appellate Court discussed Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. 286 (2017), which the Appellate Court stated held “that a violation of the right to a public trial requires -8- automatic reversal on direct appeal, but when it is raised as part of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, it is still analyzed under the Strickland framework.” Clark, 255 Md.

2023Weaver: Structural Error and Ineffective Assistance of Counsel In Weaver, 582 U.S. at 300-01 , the Supreme Court held that a violation of the constitutional right to a public trial, which on direct appeal would result in automatic reversal without inquiry into prejudice, is not entitled to a presumption of prejudice when it is raised in an ineffective assistance of counsel challenge.

2022In Ramirez v. State, this Court addressed an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in the context of a post-conviction proceeding.6 464 Md. at 539 .

2022But we also observed that “[n]ot every claim with respect to the failure to strike or challenge an 6 Ramirez addressed the interplay between structural errors and the prejudice element of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 464 Md. at 538-39 .

2023For example, referring to our opinion in Newton, we stated in Ramirez: 19 Specifically, we referred to the following list of circumstances listed in Weaver: “the complete deprivation of counsel . . . ; the failure to give a reasonable doubt jury instruction . . . ; a biased judge . . . ; and the race-based exclusion of grand jurors . . . .” Newton, 455 Md. at 361 (internal citations omitted); see also Weaver, 582 U.S. at 295, 300-01 (listing these errors as fundamentally unfair structural errors). 37 This Court observed that, in Weaver, 137 S. Ct. at 1911 , the Supreme Court held that, “even t

2023For example, referring to our opinion in Newton, we stated in Ramirez: 19 Specifically, we referred to the following list of circumstances listed in Weaver: “the complete deprivation of counsel . . . ; the failure to give a reasonable doubt jury instruction . . . ; a biased judge . . . ; and the race-based exclusion of grand jurors . . . .” Newton, 455 Md. at 361 (internal citations omitted); see also Weaver, 582 U.S. at 295, 300-01 (listing these errors as fundamentally unfair structural errors). 37 This Court observed that, in Weaver, 137 S. Ct. at 1911 , the Supreme Court held that, “even t

2013In Harris , this Court explained its function as a reviewing court for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a post-conviction proceeding. 303 Md. at 697-701 , 496 A.2d at 1080-82 .

2013In Harris , this Court explained its function as a reviewing court for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a post-conviction proceeding. 303 Md. at 697-701 , 496 A.2d at 1080-82 .

2023Instead, we held that the Strickland standard applies to ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims under the Maryland Constitution and considered the matter “settled.” Id. 455 Md. 341, 362 (2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 665 (2018) (citations omitted); see also State v. Tichnell, 306 Md. 428, 440 (1986) (quoting Harris v. State, 303 Md. 685 , 695 n.3 (1985)).

2023Instead, we held that the Strickland standard applies to ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims under the Maryland Constitution and considered the matter “settled.” Id. 455 Md. 341, 362 (2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 665 (2018) (citations omitted); see also State v. Tichnell, 306 Md. 428, 440 (1986) (quoting Harris v. State, 303 Md. 685 , 695 n.3 (1985)).

2023See, e.g., Bailey, 657 F.2d at 24-25 ; Stubbs v. Bordenkircher, 689 F.2d 1205, 1206-07 (4th Cir. 1982) (in a habeas corpus matter claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to object, the defendant was denied relief because there was no evidence that the defendant wanted to meet with counsel); Wallace v. State, 851 So. 2d 216, 217-18 (Fla. Dist.

2023See, e.g., Bailey, 657 F.2d at 24-25 ; Stubbs v. Bordenkircher, 689 F.2d 1205, 1206-07 (4th Cir. 1982) (in a habeas corpus matter claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to object, the defendant was denied relief because there was no evidence that the defendant wanted to meet with counsel); Wallace v. State, 851 So. 2d 216, 217-18 (Fla. Dist.

2023See, e.g., Bailey, 657 F.2d at 24-25 ; Stubbs v. Bordenkircher, 689 F.2d 1205, 1206-07 (4th Cir. 1982) (in a habeas corpus matter claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to object, the defendant was denied relief because there was no evidence that the defendant wanted to meet with counsel); Wallace v. State, 851 So. 2d 216, 217-18 (Fla. Dist.

2023See, e.g., Bailey, 657 F.2d at 24-25 ; Stubbs v. Bordenkircher, 689 F.2d 1205, 1206-07 (4th Cir. 1982) (in a habeas corpus matter claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to object, the defendant was denied relief because there was no evidence that the defendant wanted to meet with counsel); Wallace v. State, 851 So. 2d 216, 217-18 (Fla. Dist.

2023See, e.g., Bailey, 657 F.2d at 24-25 ; Stubbs v. Bordenkircher, 689 F.2d 1205, 1206-07 (4th Cir. 1982) (in a habeas corpus matter claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to object, the defendant was denied relief because there was no evidence that the defendant wanted to meet with counsel); Wallace v. State, 851 So. 2d 216, 217-18 (Fla. Dist.

2023See, e.g., Bailey, 657 F.2d at 24-25 ; Stubbs v. Bordenkircher, 689 F.2d 1205, 1206-07 (4th Cir. 1982) (in a habeas corpus matter claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to object, the defendant was denied relief because there was no evidence that the defendant wanted to meet with counsel); Wallace v. State, 851 So. 2d 216, 217-18 (Fla. Dist.

2022See Ramirez v. State, 464 Md. 532, 561 , 212 A.3d 363, 380 (2019). - 13 - id. at 121, 80 A.3d at 1072 .

2022See Ramirez v. State, 464 Md. 532, 561 , 212 A.3d 363, 380 (2019). - 13 - id. at 121, 80 A.3d at 1072 .

1997In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a guilty plea setting, Petitioner must satisfy the requirements of Strickland and Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 , 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985), and must “prove that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Oken v. State, 343 Md. 256, 283 , 681 A.2d 30, 43 (1996), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 742 , 136 L.Ed.2d 681 (1997); see *245 also Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369 , 113 S.Ct. 838, 842 , 122 L.Ed.2d 180, 189 (1993) (concluding that analysis in ineffe

1997In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a guilty plea setting, Petitioner must satisfy the requirements of Strickland and Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 , 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985), and must “prove that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Oken v. State, 343 Md. 256, 283 , 681 A.2d 30, 43 (1996), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 742 , 136 L.Ed.2d 681 (1997); see *245 also Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369 , 113 S.Ct. 838, 842 , 122 L.Ed.2d 180, 189 (1993) (concluding that analysis in ineffe

2006See Perry v. State, 344 Md. 204, 227-28 , 686 A.2d 274, 285 (1996).” Ware, 360 Md. at 706 , 759 A.2d at 793-94 .

2006See Perry v. State, 344 Md. 204, 227-28 , 686 A.2d 274, 285 (1996).” Ware, 360 Md. at 706 , 759 A.2d at 793-94 .

2019However, if a petitioner advances even a fundamental constitutional claim "but fail[s] to assert all grounds upon which that claim is made, [the petitioner has] waived any allegation upon which the ineffective assistance of counsel claim could have been made but was not." State v. Syed , 463 Md. 60 , 104, 204 A.3d 139 (2019).

2019However, if a petitioner advances even a fundamental constitutional claim "but fail[s] to assert all grounds upon which that claim is made, [the petitioner has] waived any allegation upon which the ineffective assistance of counsel claim could have been made but was not." State v. Syed , 463 Md. 60 , 104, 204 A.3d 139 (2019).

2023(Emphasis supplied.) See also Ware v. State, 360 Md. 650, 706 , 759 A.2d 764 (2000); Addison v. State, 191 Md.

2011As we stated in Addison, 191 Md.App. at 175 , 990 A.2d 614 , “[w]here, as here, the record sheds no light on why counsel acted as he did, direct review by this Court would primarily involve the perilous process of second-guessing, perhaps resulting in an unnecessary reversal in a case where sound but unapparent reasons existed for counsel’s actions.” It is unclear from the record in the instant matter why appellant’s counsel failed to ask follow-up questions of Juror 753 or to object to Juror 753 being empaneled as Juror Number Four.

2023(Emphasis supplied.) See also Ware v. State, 360 Md. 650, 706 , 759 A.2d 764 (2000); Addison v. State, 191 Md.

2023(Emphasis supplied.) See also Ware v. State, 360 Md. 650, 706 , 759 A.2d 764 (2000); Addison v. State, 191 Md.

2020Criminal defendants are guaranteed the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.6 The right to counsel means “the right to effective assistance of counsel.” Duvall v. State, 399 Md. 210, 221 (2007) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686 ) (internal quotation marks omitted). 6 The Sixth Amendment provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” The right is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

2012Id. at 240 , 923 A.2d 81 .

2012Such a conclusion is buttressed by United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), decided the same day as Strickland , in which the Supreme Court described the situations in which prejudice in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim will be presumed as including (1) where the accused is subjected to “the complete denial of counsel,” (2) where “counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing,” and (3) where, “although counsel is available to assist the accused during trial, the likelihood that any lawyer, even a full

2012Such a conclusion is buttressed by United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), decided the same day as Strickland , in which the Supreme Court described the situations in which prejudice in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim will be presumed as including (1) where the accused is subjected to “the complete denial of counsel,” (2) where “counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing,” and (3) where, “although counsel is available to assist the accused during trial, the likelihood that any lawyer, even a full

2025Flores-Ortega In Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. at 473-74, 487 , a federal habeas corpus case, the Supreme Court of the United States addressed an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on the failure to file an appeal where the record was unclear as to whether the defendant’s trial counsel consulted with the defendant after sentencing about an appeal.

2025Addressing deficient performance, the Supreme Court held that counsel has an obligation to discuss a potential appeal with a defendant “when there is reason to think either (1) that a rational defendant would want to appeal (for example, because there are nonfrivolous grounds for appeal), or (2) that this particular defendant reasonably demonstrated to counsel that he was interested in appealing.” Id. at 480 .