James A. Philbrook v. State of Maine, 167 A.3d 1266

James Philbrook was convicted by a jury of theft by misapplication of property and securities fraud for convincing clients to transfer $195,000 purportedly for investments but instead using the funds for personal and family expenses.
He was sentenced to concurrent terms (eight years with five suspended for theft, three years for securities fraud) and ordered to pay $195,000 restitution; the conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
Philbrook petitioned for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations and at trial (counsel’s illness/inattention), and sought to vacate his conviction or obtain other relief.
The post-conviction court found counsel had conveyed the State’s plea offer (a two-year cap), that Philbrook would not have accepted any offer involving prison time, and that counsel’s illness did not demonstrably impair trial performance or cause prejudice.
Philbrook appealed the post-conviction denial; the Supreme Judicial Court reviewed whether the record compelled findings of deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland and related Maine precedents.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance during plea negotiations	Philbrook: counsel failed to communicate plea details and that, but for counsel’s errors, there was a reasonable probability he would have accepted the State’s offer	State: counsel communicated the offer; Philbrook would not accept any offer requiring prison time; no reasonable probability he would have accepted	Held: No. Record supports that counsel communicated the offer and Philbrook would not have accepted a prison term; petitioner failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice during plea negotiations.
Ineffective assistance at trial due to counsel’s illness/inattention	Philbrook: counsel’s coughing/fatigue led to failure to object (e.g., to leading questions) and undermined reliability of conviction; seeks presumed prejudice/constructive denial	State: counsel remained functional (opening, cross-examining, calling defendant, closing); no specific adverse consequences tied to alleged inattention; no constructive denial shown	Held: No. Trial performance did not fall below objective standard nor produce reasonable probability of different outcome; no presumed prejudice warranted and no obvious error in not applying it.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (Sixth Amendment right applies to plea bargaining; elements for prejudice in rejected plea offers)
Theriault v. State, 125 A.3d 1163 (Me. 2015) (clarifies "reasonable probability" prejudice standard and constructive denial concept)
Middleton v. State, 129 A.3d 962 (Me. 2015) (applies Strickland standards in Maine post-conviction context)
Laferriere v. State, 697 A.2d 1301 (Me. 1997) (burden on petitioner in post-conviction ineffective-assistance claims)