Ford v. State, 205 A.3d 896

In 2008 Ford was tried and convicted after a high-speed chase and incidents where he rammed police cruisers; he was sentenced to 20 years with all but nine years suspended.
At trial Ford presented a defense that PTSD and medications caused a "flashback"/abnormal mental condition; the State argued he was fleeing because he had stolen well tiles.
Ford did not testify at trial; trial counsel reportedly prevented him from doing so and failed to discuss the right to testify.
Ford filed a post-conviction petition alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance, and the Superior Court granted relief only as to counsel's failure to file an appeal and later found counsel had denied Ford the right to testify.
The Superior Court vacated only the misdemeanor theft conviction based on prejudice from the denied testimony but denied relief as to the felony convictions.
The Law Court granted a certificate of probable cause limited to whether the court erred by denying relief on the felony convictions given the deprivation of Ford’s right to testify; the State did not challenge the court’s finding of deficient performance as to the right to testify.

Issue	Ford's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel's refusal to permit Ford to testify was constitutionally deficient	Counsel prevented Ford from testifying and failed to advise him of the right to testify; this is objectively unreasonable	(Not contested on appeal)	Counsel's conduct was constitutionally deficient; it deprived Ford of his right to testify.
Whether Ford demonstrated actual prejudice to his felony convictions from the deprivation	But for being prevented from testifying, there is a reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different result on all counts because Ford's testimony bore on his mental state and motive	Superior Court found prejudice only as to the theft conviction	The court held Ford showed actual prejudice as to all convictions; vacatur of all convictions is required.
Whether deprivation of the right to testify is a structural error excusing a showing of prejudice	Ford argued it may be structural and warrant automatic reversal	State argued that when raised as ineffective-assistance claim, prejudice must still be shown (Weaver)	Court avoided deciding structural-error question because it found actual prejudice on the record.
Scope of relief appropriate after finding deficient performance	Ford sought vacatur of all convictions	State supported vacatur only of the theft conviction (as the Superior Court ordered)	Judgment vacated; remanded to enter judgment granting post-conviction relief and vacating all remaining convictions.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (defendant's testimony and demeanor can strongly affect credibility)
Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (structural-error discussion when raised as ineffective-assistance claim)
Owens v. United States, 483 F.3d 48 (failure to inform defendant of right to testify is constitutionally deficient)
Tuplin v. State, 901 A.2d 792 (recognizing constitutional right to testify)
Middleton v. State, 129 A.3d 962 (standard of review for post-conviction factual findings)
State v. Ford, 82 A.3d 75 (prior opinion summarizing trial facts and issues)