Fahnley v. State, 188 A.3d 871

In 2013 Fahnley was indicted on one count of gross sexual assault and two counts of sexual abuse of a minor; a 2014 jury convicted him of one count of sexual abuse (Class C) and acquitted on the others.
Fahnley sought post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to present exculpatory medical and credit-card records, failing to call or interview several defense witnesses, and failing to follow through on a defense plan communicated to Fahnley in a pre-trial letter.
At trial the State’s case rested on the alleged victim’s credibility; the victim’s trial testimony diverged materially from earlier statements; trial counsel refreshed the victim’s recollection but did not seek admission of prior inconsistent statements.
Counsel had identified witnesses (including a portfolio manager and two potential alibi witnesses) and had obtained records in preparation for trial but did not call the witnesses or introduce the records; counsel explained concern about an “imperfect alibi” and potential impeachment uses by the State.
The post-conviction court found counsel failed to reasonably investigate, failed to present potentially exculpatory evidence despite promising to do so, and failed to consult with Fahnley about overall strategy; it concluded these failures prejudiced the defense and vacated the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Fahnley)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether trial counsel provided constitutionally effective assistance	Counsel failed to investigate witnesses and records, failed to present promised exculpatory evidence, and abandoned the defense plan without consultation	Some decisions were tactical and justifiable; record supports some strategic choices	Court held counsel was ineffective; post-conviction court’s factual findings are supported and judgment vacating conviction is affirmed
Whether counsel’s failure to introduce prior inconsistent statements was reasonable	Failure deprived defense of its best avenue to impeach the victim’s credibility	Counsel effectively refreshed recollection; omission was tactical	Court found omission contributed to ineffective assistance determination
Whether failure to call identified witnesses caused prejudice	Uncalled witnesses and records would have supported alibi and motive to fabricate, creating reasonable probability of different result	State argues record supports some tactical bases for not calling them	Court found exclusion of witnesses/evidence prejudiced defense and supported vacatur
Standard of review for post-conviction factual findings	N/A (procedural)	N/A (procedural)	Appellate court applies deferential review and will not overturn findings unless clearly erroneous; here sufficient competent evidence supports findings

Middleton v. State, 2015 ME 164 (post-conviction findings supported by competent record evidence)
Pineo v. State, 2006 ME 119 (deferential review to post-conviction court findings)
Philbrook v. State, 2017 ME 162 (standard for proving prejudice under Strickland)
Fortune v. State, 2017 ME 61 (two-part ineffective assistance analysis citing Strickland)
McGowan v. State, 2006 ME 16 (constitutional right to effective assistance at trial)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Theriault v. State, 2015 ME 137 (application of ineffective-assistance principles in Maine)