Mark J. Theriault v. State of Maine
125 A.3d 1163
| Me. | 2015Background
- Theriault was indicted in July 2008 for unlawful sexual contact with a six-year-old victim in March 2008.
- A one-day jury trial occurred in February 2011; the State presented three witnesses including the victim, her sister, and a nurse.
- Theriault was sentenced to 16 years with eight years suspended, plus six years of probation.
- Theriault through counsel filed a petition for post-conviction review in August 2012, amended in May 2013, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel by Allan Hanson.
- The post-conviction court denied relief in March 2014, basing its ruling on lack of prejudice using an interlocutory prejudice standard.
- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated and remanded for reconsideration under the proper Strickland prejudice standard (reasonable probability).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the post-conviction court applied the correct prejudice standard | Theriault argues the court used an outcome-determinative test rather than Strickland's reasonable probability standard. | Hanson contends the court properly considered prejudice through established standards and avoided overreach. | Remand for proper Strickland prejudice analysis; not decided on prejudice in this ruling. |
| Whether Theriault proved actual prejudice under Strickland | Theriault asserts deficiencies in counsel undermined the trial's reliability. | Hanson argues no reasonable probability that the outcome would differ due to alleged deficiencies. | Court remands to evaluate actual prejudice under Strickland (reasonable probability) rather than outcome-determinative. |
| Whether presumptive prejudice applies to extreme ineffectiveness | Theriault contends that some deficiencies constitute extreme ineffectiveness, warranting presumed prejudice. | Hanson argues presumptive prejudice should be rare and not established here. | Question unresolved pending remand; court will apply extreme-ineffectiveness analysis if warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test: deficiency and prejudice; reasonable probability standard)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (distinguishes reasonable probability from outcome-determinative approach)
- Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1993) (prejudice assessed for reliability of proceeding, not mere outcome)
- Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1986) (prejudice not shown where perjured testimony would not have altered reliability)
- Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (presumed prejudice only in rare complete denials of counsel)
- Laferriere v. State, 697 A.2d 1301 (Me. 1997) ( Maine application of prejudice standards in ineffective assistance)
- Manley v. State, 2015 ME 117 (Me. 2015) (recognizes Strickland standard as controlling in Maine post-conviction)
- Gauthier v. State, 23 A.3d 185 (Me. 2011) (clarifies Maine standards for ineffective assistance and prejudice)