In re Hill, 129 Cal. Rptr. 3d 856

Hill was convicted of 23 counts of sexual offenses against two minors after a jury trial; he seeks habeas relief and appeals on ineffective assistance grounds.
Hill contends trial counsel did not investigate or prepare adequately: failing to obtain C.W.'s colposcopic photographs before trial and not securing an independent medical expert.
Declarations from Hill’s trial counsel, and medical experts Ticson and Coyne, allege deficiencies in investigation, photography, and expert consultation.
The prosecution’s case relied heavily on medical testimony by Dr. Davis, who testified that a normal nonacute exam could coincide with molestation, and discussed herpes infection stats.
The court applied Strickland standards, found deficient performance, and held prejudice given the medical-evidence weaknesses and the impact on credibility of key witnesses.
Because of the deficient representation, the court vacated the judgment in its entirety and granted habeas relief, with retry permitted on reversed counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was trial counsel’s handling deficient under Strickland?	Hill asserts counsel failed to obtain colposcopic photos and consult medical experts.	People contend trial strategies and decisions were reasonable within a trial context.	Yes; deficient performance found due to failure to obtain photos and expert input.
Did the deficiency prejudice Hill under Strickland?	Deficiency undermined reliability of medical testimony and defense theory.	Prejudice not shown or not substantial enough to overturn verdicts.	Yes; reasonable probability of a more favorable result if counsel had investigated and presented medical defenses.
Should the convictions be reversed and habeas relief granted?	Without effective assistance, the entire judgment cannot stand.	Retrial on some counts might be possible if relief were limited.	Yes; the petition granted; the judgment vacated in its entirety; retrial possible on reversed counts.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
People v. Ledesma, 43 Cal.3d 171 (Cal. 1987) (prejudice and standard for ineffectiveness; harm analysis)
In re Williams, 1 Cal.3d 168 (Cal. 1969) (duty to investigate defenses)
In re Fields, 51 Cal.3d 1063 (Cal. 1990) (adequate investigation as defense obligation)
In re Edward S., 173 Cal.App.4th 387 (Cal. App. 2009) (defense must investigate potentially exculpatory evidence)
Gersten v. Senkowski, 426 F.3d 588 (2d Cir. 2005) (failure to obtain medical evidence undermining prosecution; impact of expert testimony)