In Re Combs, 27 A.3d 318

Petitioner Ronald Combs convicted of first-degree murder in 1995 and sentenced to 35 years to life.
Petitioner filed a post-conviction relief petition in 2006 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
PCR hearing held in 2009, petition denied, leading to this appeal.
Petitioner had a history of mental illness; initially found incompetent to stand trial and involuntarily committed, later deemed competent but with marginal capacity.
Psychiatric evidence indicated insanity at the time of the offense; district judge invited bifurcation and directed defense counsel to discuss it with petitioner, who refused.
Trial record shows defense counsel advised petitioner against an insanity defense, and petitioner’s choice was treated as controlling; bifurcation discussion occurred without petitioner’s express consent but was understood as not pursued due to petitioner’s wishes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s failure to discuss bifurcation violated IAC.	Combs argues counsel should have explained bifurcation options.	Combs rejected insanity; counsel followed client’s decision.	Affirmed on bifurcation issue; no IAC found.
Whether failure to seek a stipulation of insanity constitutes IAC.	Experts said counsel should have pursued insanity stipulation.	Petitioner controlled strategy; no stipulation pursued due to his choice.	Reversed and remanded for findings on stipulation claim.
Whether PCR court properly addressed all IAC claims.	Court failed to resolve second claim about insanity stipulation.	Court addressed bifurcation but not stipulation.	Remanded for proper findings and determination on stipulation claim.

State v. Bristol, 159 Vt. 334, 618 A.2d 1291 (1992) (1992) (ineffective assistance standards and burden of proof in VT)
In re Dunbar, 162 Vt. 209, 647 A.2d 316 (1994) (1994) (heavy burden; admissibility of trial strategy discretion)
In re Mecier, 143 Vt. 23, 460 A.2d 472 (1983) (1983) (counsel conduct evaluated in light of prevailing norms)
In re Pernicka, 147 Vt. 180, 513 A.2d 616 (1986) (1986) (reconstructing circumstances and hindsight in IAC review)
State v. Bean, 171 Vt. 290, 762 A.2d 1259 (2000) (2000) (decision to pursue insanity defense rests with defendant; counsel implements decision)
Tribble, 2005 VT 132, 179 Vt. 235, 892 A.2d 232 (2005) (duty to implement client’s decisions in trial strategy)
State v. Washington, 2003 VT 98, 176 Vt. 529, 838 A.2d 87 (2003) (IAC standard applied in VT; Strickland framework)
Hale Mtn. Fish & Game Club, Inc., 2007 VT 102, 182 Vt. 606, 939 A.2d 498 (2007) (need for explicit findings on disputed evidence)
Klein v. Klein, 150 Vt. 466, 555 A.2d 382 (1988) (1988) (judicial discretion in reviewing trial counsel performance)