Calene v. State

Count II jury to consider judge to allow CALENE, (Defendant), Appellant hand.

in the case at John Zavarelli, court s issuance In the district appealed. injunction was permanent of a Wyoming, The STATE Supreme (Plaintiff). of Montana reversed Court Appellee remand, After and remanded the case. No. 90-264. appealed. ruling again district court’s Supreme Wyoming. Court that, Supreme held on reversal Court remand, reinvest- the district court was Feb. pro- for further jurisdiction ed full the court stated:

ceedings. Specifically, the first this Court reversed

When Court as to a

judgment of the District easement, and remanded the

prescriptive District Court for further

cause to the the cause was then before

proceedings, posture in the of not

the District Court situa-

having judgment. final

tion, nothing in the terms when there is it, prevent the trial

of the mandate to reconsideration, power,

court has change its

to find the same facts and facts consis-

holding, or to find different holding. Imperial original

tent with its Industries Ltd. v. National

Chemical (2d Corp.

Distillers and Chemical Cir. 1965), 354 F.2d

New York

A.L.R.3d 492.

Zavarelli, at 493. 779 P.2d in this precisely

This is the situation remand, the case was

case. On

posture having judgment, a final

thus, neither the doctrine of of the case law applies.

nor A care- the doctrine waiver reading opinion

ful and mandate nothing pre-

this case illustrates there having juris- full

vent the trial court from claims, regardless

diction to hear all of the specifically they were raised whether

not. properly

I II was con- would hold Count I jury,

sidered and would affirm

jury entirety. in its verdict Munker, Defend-

Leonard D. State Public Gallivan, Director, er, M. Gerald Program, and Darold S. Defender Aid Melchior, Program, Wyoming Defender Aid Intern, appellant. Student Gen., Joseph Meyer, Atty. Sylvia B. L. Hackl, Gen., Atty. L. Deputy Jennifer Gim- Gen., bel, Atty. Theodore E. Sr. Asst. Lauer, Director, Prosecution Assistance Beverly Program, Jaye Rippley P. J. Program, Montoya, Assistance Prosecution Interns, appellee. Student THOMAS, MACY, C.J., ymous police. call to the Identification of Before * CARDINE, GOLDEN, anonymous caller later established URBIGKIT police, by the but the informant was not JJ. testify called to trial. Calene’s URBIGKIT, Justice. conviction, Following his Calene wrote a procedures This tests the utilized judge describing letter to the trial claims of under law when ineffectiveness appointed conduct of his ineffective coun- alleged by the of trial counsel is convicted July letter, sel. he asked defendant. by for a new trial. The letter was followed September request by Calene’s opinion procedures address the This will to withdraw. was Withdrawal appellant factually develop to available granted by court order and a successor claiming contention ineffectiveness of appointed. counsel was representation legal his which was not doc- original umented within the trial record. Second counsel refiled the motion for a trial, alleging general We reverse the decision of the trial court new same hearing grounds the motion original which denied on for a of ineffectiveness of the attorney. This remanded for the That motion for a new trial. case is new trial hearing sentencing hearing trial court to hold a factual on the was combined with the September and heard on validity allegations by made John 1990. The summarily motion was denied and the sen- representation Calene of ineffective follow- orally by tence was entered ing conspiracy followed his conviction of four and September deny- order on written larceny offenses. ing entering the motion for new trial and the sentence. I. FACTS September At the 1990 new trial/sen- (Calene) John Calene was arrested and tencing hearing, the trial court stated: receiving tried for the felonies of stolen Calene, very THE Mr. COURT:

property, possessing a vehicle with al- thing, first we have to deal with is there identification, accessory tered before the new, is a motion filed for a new trial. felony larceny conspiracy fact of to me, you I received the letter that sent larceny. commit He was convicted of all course, letter, and the court—or the charges four and received sentences of accusatory simply conclusory at best counts, years two-to-four on all four with nature, the court that believes concurrently counts one and two to run things you if even that claim that with each other and counts three four true, they properly letter are are other, concurrently to run each with but appeal. handled on the sentences for counts one and two were reason, For the court does not consecutively ordered to run with the sen- grant your denies motion for but rather tences for three counts and four. Conse- you appeal, if wish to a new trial. And quently, Calene received a total sentence of you may up appeal. issues on take those year two consecutive two-to-four terms. judge The letter to the trial stated: object charges of these was a Dat- writing you hope having I’m to sun 280Z which had been stolen in Lake- im- grounds mistrial declared on the wood, by parties Colorado other and deliv- my court-ap- proper representation by Gillette, Wyoming, ered to where it was * * pointed attorney, *. repainted by Calene. The vehicle had been I There are several matters feel wer- impounded police in Gillette and was properly during en’t handled before and police impound then stolen from lot and my trial. again returned to Colorado where it was I happened recovered as a stolen The entire The first as was to have vehicle.

episode my preliminary hearing county initiated in was Gillette an anon- court. * argument; January Chief Justice at time of retired oral being lack witnesses called The first postpone wanted me counsel] [Defense * * * My who my he could have time behalf. cousin so that my losing voluntarily I was afraid of

prepare appear it. because wouldn’t I for him speedy trial so asked honeymoon to a being should have on his Detention Center me to come visit He could have subpeoned been [sic]. coming to my hearing. Instead of before that I was hired Mike the fact verified attorney] to tell he sent see me [another paint a I had no car and that & Brett only postpone I was to me had choice they had sto- knowledge of the fact that busy a jury he because was to[o] my trip to Denver with len the car until he in wasn’t jury trial. Kirby Lyons should Mr. McMasters. just a assigned him. He was even prove falacy subpeoned have been [sic] my up postponing spectator. I ended testimony McMaster’s with Shawn [sic] give prepare. him time to hearing to day the car talking the about with him hearing approached I contacted As the and to tell the confinscated was [sic] only to things going him see how were to I I left town because was court that to look hear that he hadn’t been able going happen to with afraid of what was me up having He my over files. ended the wanting to steal car Mike & Brett he my preliminary because waive he Also I feel that should have back. prepare had to a defense. hadn’t time subpeoned of the Gillette Mr. Allard [sic] During delay he hired two investi- testify that I had Tire to to the fact Store * * my *. gators to do research on case: title from him or never recieved a [sic] gave list of several wit- I them both a my inquired Also wife even about one. in order to that be needed nesses would Patsy have been sub- Martinez should prove my innocence. I that was peoned because she knew [sic] I During my jail from on release bond I he paint to the car. Also feel just hired in checked with about [defense counsel] tape of Shawn should have entered the only hear that the investi- once a week to Mr. Hanson interview with McMasters[’] my to gators hadn’t been able contact anything say prove to that he will almost gave all informa- witnesses. I them the a required keep jam. himself out of to required get tion in touch with them. never have should counse] [Defense only people I that the interviewed believe client; (myself) was stu- that his stated against me. were the State’s witnesses closing in addressing jury in his pid conflicting Both of whom told stories argument. investigators. pretrial day my was set Then thought wrong thing I to be One other I day that I was told and he was sick my your I instructions felt that in trial required to wasn’t be there. it you have made more jury to the should attempts re- Further to contact him charge seperate clear each was that [sic] garding my futile case were because they And should be from the other. that I next he was on vacation. was week treated as such. by him informed his office to meet with that I have light of the facts appointment an following Sunday, you I brought your hope attention kept by that was not counsel]. [defense grounds grant me a new on the will following required he week part Improper counsel on that stand: advocacy and anoth- attend a trial school defender; public coun- of the [defense Sunday appointment er was scheduled. taking for this matter you Thank sel]. day Sunday He on called me truly I don’t into consideration because my me a few before trial and asked I go prison for crimes that want to simple he questions and told me didn’t didn’t commit. need to see me. the second motion for new felt day my The next trial I there basis, denial “of fair counsel stated as were issues that atten- several need[ed] ineffective assistance coun- tion. trial due to decision. That record and decision will as an exhibit letter sel” attached appeal on then be available review or July. which had been filed subsequent proceedings in the federal system, pursued, if constitutional II. ISSUE inquiry jurisdiction. recog- to that It is presented this case is The structure of law, nized that this subject, on appellate record which furnishes jurisdictions.1 generally differs from most analysis of this court the valid- no basis default, applies This court ity claims of invalidity ineffective- right, perspective waiver constitutional Furthermore, the record ness counsel. to ineffectiveness of trial counsel claims that the trial did not demonstrates if presented by cases all initial discretion, exercise based factual appeal. Meyer, 820 P.2d Engberg v. finding, rendering deny the decision to State, (Wyo.1991); Murray v. 776 P.2d 206 Our determination new trial motion. State, (Wyo.1989); Kallas the facts will be devel- will establish how State, (Wyo.1989); P.2d Amin v. since oped appellate review ineffective- State, (Wyo.1989); Campbell P.2d counsel, requires precedent, ness of our State, (Wyo.1989); Schuler P.2d presented during the these issues to be (Wyo.1989); Cutbirth procedurally initial or otherwise (Wyo.1988). poses 1257 P.2d This evi- issue defaulted. The more defined involves dentiary problem we now must re- which where procedures for those cases evidence in adjudication solve order to avoid from required beyond the record is to make trial ignorance where some ineffectiveness judicial proper a and informed decision re- supple- claims cannot without be resolved garding constitutionally-required com- mentation of was not evidence which devel- petent legal counsel. assistance of oped inclusion in the initial record. denying the We reverse the order motion Normally, such additional evidence would for a new remand for trial and lawyer, the trial testimony include evidentiary hearing. hold an accused, requirement and a for the convict- a viable ed defendant to demonstrate factu-

III. DISCUSSION support which his claim re- al basis would case, quality rep- garding To a decision for this claimed adverse make processes provided. he This answer this court examine the avail resentation will post-sentence particular Wyo able under structure of comes within either a motion ming’s counsel new trial on ineffectiveness of ineffectiveness of law in for a based hearing provid- system or order to for factual counsel within a remand following appeal.2 development by the trial court initial ed institution of its 472, 1926, cert. 1. The for review of claims L.Ed.2d denied 469 normal rule of intrin 80 863, placed 200, (1984); sic counsel is ineffectiveness of within 105 post-conviction processes, including relief habe- State, Harley (Fla.App.1992); v. 594 So.2d 352 corpus, petition post-conviction as for relief or a State, v. Ga. 393 S.E.2d 229 Smith 260 trial, pursued by motion for a new to be a (1990); Licata, Com. 412 Mass. v. 591 is, evidentiary if a bona fide conflict or (1992); DeGeorge, 672 Com. v. 506 Pa. N.E.2d be, may system, the federal created. (1984); Com. ex rel. 485 A.2d 1089 Wash corpus accepted petition, method is the habeas ington Maroney, v. 427 Pa. 235 A.2d 349 pro 28 U.S.C. unless the trial record § (1967); State, (S.C. 223 Horton v. 411 S.E.2d dispositive clear detail for vides decision. 1991); Wickline, W.Va. v. 184 399 State exhaustive, truly The case recent law is but State, Murray S.E.2d 42 also v. 776 See Johnson, v. cases would include: United States State, (Wyo.1989); 776 P.2d 206 Kallas P.2d (5th Cir.1992); F.2d United 954 1015 States v. (Wyo.1989); 774 and Amin v. P.2d McGill, Cir.1991); (1st 952 F.2d 16 United States (Wyo.1989). Bounds, (5th Cir.1991); F.2d United Tatum, (4th Cir.1991); States v. 943 F.2d 370 judicial processes provide hy- 2. The California a Murdock, (8th United 928 F.2d States v. system permitting analysis by factual a brid Schmidt, Cir.1991); United States v. 922 F.2d post-conviction motion for a trial or a (8th Cir.1991); new Percy, United States normally (4th Cir.1985); corpus proceeding habeas which is Birges, F.2d 1199 United States v. (9th Cir.), appellate 723 F.2d 666 cert. considered on with other is- denied Next, correctly reliance defendant asserts problem for practical mistakenly a the trial believed that new usage of the motion permitted after assistance of counsel was not is short time ineffective initially, permissible granting and the likeli a motion such a motion a basis trial to make yet counsel has A new trial can be appellate for a new trial. hood that recognized that trial assistance granted It based on ineffective become involved. expect be asked nor preju- should neither if is substantial counsel of counsel there perfor to contend ineffectiveness ed dice. within the trial by himself or herself mance Id. People activities. plea bargaining or Consequently, when a fide issue bona Ill.App.3d 170 Ill.Dec. Hayes, does, infrequency its oc- performance (1992). Consequently, the 593 N.E.2d 739 currence, realistically regarding prep- exist case, differing usual trial forum the new performance, oppor- and trial time aration very occurring here with from events tunity appellate is needed for counsel counsel, realistically change early could judicial the facts document involved only generally for ineffectiveness used filing a decision. Since the time for motion involving extrinsic circumstances cases usually passed, will have for new trial questions. This performance not intrinsic remaining process appellate is for the extrinsic circumstance is so because partial remand for to file motion of by events uncontrolled case is occasioned process hearing. factual This leaves the in The intrinsic cases trial counsel. only opportunity for state exhaustion of counsel, determinative decisions volve Although in of a factual review. absence may unplanned as it have been. planned or request, our default decisions for counsel action inaction will basis apply under state fed- would law. Within in the trial frequently not be documented subject, in the applicable eral rules record. of to absence of the the defendant here, may develop A as different result hearing, procedural de- preclusive obtain a however, may move where the defendant fault cannot exist under the federal consti- ap pro upon the contention that se based tution. as, prepare; pointed counsel has failed to only case the This is illustrative since investigate alibi on example, witness available, beyond documentation trial evi- Krankel, People 102 Ill.2d his behalf. v. dence, complaint by appel- is the letter of 62, (1984). 181, N.E.2d 1045 80 Ill.Dec. pre- to court. The lant addressed the trial the court refused to rule on a Where trial liminary hearing had and no been waived

pro se motion for a new trial based trial any transcript pretrial conference ses- perfor of counsel ineffectiveness sion is available. Without some factual Jackson, mance, 158 Ill. People see regarding development defense counsel’s 746, 394, App.3d 110 Ill.Dec. 511 N.E.2d pretrial investigation, preparation, trial wit- (1987). 170 Ill.Dec. Hayes, also See presenta- evidentiary ness interview and 739, where there was 593 N.E.2d tion, adjudicate from this court called to misunderstanding the con abject ignorance do. we decline to trolling principle insanity defense law. —which addition, court had a mistaken the trial Synthesizing original the now statements granted, that a could not belief new trial be presented briefing, of inef- contentions of counsel “based on ineffective assistance They fectiveness of counsel are threefold. prejudice.” at if there is Id. substantial (a) preparation pre- include: lack of for the 857, 593 N.E.2d at 746. liminary hearing resulting required waiv- er; (b) confer, Hayes regarding failure to be to to recognized, available investigate the motion for a trial: to new interview Fosselman, Babbitt, (1987); People People sues. Cal. Cal.3d 729 P.2d (1988), Rptr. Cal.Rptr. 755 P.2d 253 cert. denied Cal.3d (1989); Ledesma, People Cal.Rptr. 43 Cal.3d preparation trial; (c) failure initially to sub- knew and Appellant introduced poena the witnesses to be available for trial two men who “owned” the car in question, testimony.3 Appel- could have verified that lant was hired paint two men to evidence introduced circumstantial car, Appellant and that had no knowl- against at Calene was substantial. edge painted that the ear to be was sto- Furthermore, sufficiency this is not a Hartwig len. Mr. could have further appellate evidence review. To defend provided names, last, both first and against implica- web unfavorable the two men who stole the car and ar- resulting tions from trial established histor- ranged painted by to have it Appellant. events, ical Calene claimed he did not know Kirby Lyons Mr. could have testified that stolen, originally vehicle was did not Appellant did not talk with Shawn anything changed have to do VIN McMaster, witness, key State’s day plate, and did not involve himself in the the car was confiscated as McMaster tes- police impound removal of the car from the tified at Appellant and that left lot. It was to his “I didn’t do of it” town because he was fearful of what defense. going was happen relative to the two These contentions and available evidence men and plan impound- their to steal the appellate were summarized in Calene’s police ed car from impound lot. Mr. brief: Allard, Store, owner of Gillette Tire Appellant maintained that he had no could have Appellant testified that did knowledge agreed the car he procure question title to the car in paint stolen, at least not until after Store, from contrary Gillette Tire painted impounded car was testimony Patsy McMaster’s trial. police. ample There existed evidence Martinez Appel- could have testified that support that would Appellant’s “lack of lant was hired two men from Denver knowledge” defense, evidence that coun- paint car, their and that Appellant had sel knew about but which he did not no knowledge that the car was stolen. investigate or make an effort to have Second, there are several incidents that reasonably investigated. Appellant pro- during occurred the course of counsel’s vided counsel with a list of witnesses Appellant strongly association with verify who could knowledge” his “lack of suggest that counsel’s decision not to call defense. Appellant provided counsel subpoena large- certain witnesses was with the names of Hartwig, Mr. Dan Mr. ly, solely, if not the result of counsel’s Kirby Lyons, Allard, Patsy Mr. and Ms. inadequate preparation investigation, Hartwig, person Martinez. Mr. First, strategic making. who and not decision comprehensive (1991) (Missouri case); 3. One of the more classifications 450 United States v. many provided of these frequently cases is in a (3rd Cir.1989); Gray, 878 F.2d 702 Code v. Waltz, journal cited law review. Jon R. Inade (11th Montgomery, Cir.1986); 799 F.2d 1481 quacy Representation Trial as a Decoster, (D.C.Cir.1976), of Defense United States v. 624 F.2d 196 Ground Cases, Post-Conviction In Criminal 302, for Relief rt. denied 444 U.S. 100 S.Ct. 62 ce (1964). Wyoming 59 Nw.U.L.Rev. 289 (1979); Wickline, L.Ed.2d 311 S.E.2d 42. some, most, has seen if not of these contentions' category The second is distilled into the unfa prior general pre case review. Two classes description "gave up" representation: vorable of dominate in instances where a reversal or at Sullivan, (10th 1990); Capps v. F.2d 260 Cir. comprehensive least a factual is re State, Cochran v. 262 Ga. 414 S.E.2d 211 essence, quired. they may essentially In be (1992); Droz, People v. 39 N.Y.2d situation, differently. same but described (1976); N.Y.S.2d 348 N.E.2d 880 Culton v. group category pretrial first is within the of State, Wickline, (Tex.App.1991); 818 S.W.2d preparation, failure to interview or call witness S.E.2d State, King (Wyo.1991); es: 810 P.2d 119 State, similarly The Anders Laing brief cases (Wyo.1987); 746 P.2d 1247 Gist v. State, identified attitude of counsel: (Wyo.1987), Anders v. appeal 737 P.2d 336 Califor after nia, (Wyo.1988); remand 766 P.2d 87 S.Ct. 18 L.Ed.2d 493 Frias v. State, (Wyo.1986); Engberg See Kenley P.2d 135 Armontrout, Cir.), (8th (Wyo.), 937 F.2d 1298 cert. denied cert. de 105 S.Ct. — —, (1984); nied Engberg, 116 L.Ed.2d P.2d 70. cf. even functory participation which did not by to requested counsel after Appellant, hearing so as to affidavit to preliminary preparation an postpone his include same, to prepare allow counsel in the ini- support the statements included right prelimi- to the his forced to waive probably explaina- All of this is tial letter. indicated hearing because counsel nary no judge demonstrated ble because the to he had not had time Appellant to that providing time for a factual interest Second, investigators prepare a defense. hearing.4 Appellant’s to research counsel hired they were unable claimed that case the individ address the We had been whose names contact witnesses hearing in secure a factual ual defendant to Appel- by Appellant, despite given them system on contentions of the state court necessary informa- them the giving lant’s events regarding of counsel ineffectiveness Further, contact. tion to ensure pro trial record. in the undocumented have these witnesses no effort to made system for viding a definite and available the val- so he could ascertain subpoenaed needed, it is development factual where testimony Appel- their relative ue of absence, recognized procedural de that Third, strategy. defense lant’s overall standpoint from fault cannot occur Appellant’s followed weeks To retain federal constitutional standards. conference, which was pretrial scheduled principal making the state decision being his counsel due to not attended judicial procedures system, Wyoming ill, by Appellant he was in- nor because inquiry provide for factual when should unnecessary it him structed that was of counsel issues are creat ineffectiveness there, a myriad filled were with from the ed which are not determinable prevented counsel which circumstances particular initial trial record. Within duty to performing present his from law, competent ap structure defense. There Appellant a reasonable present required inef pellate counsel appointments, canceled were broken and the initial contentions within fectiveness vacation, council’s manda- counsel’s [sic] procedural state default. to avoid school, advocacy tory attendance at However, system, there a state without damaging impasses pre- other of this issue cannot be default effectively repre- from vented counsel standpoint application of from the finally Counsel made senting Appellant. in federal United Constitution States Appellant day phone contact proceedings. The construction Appellant a before his and asked adequate judicial for resolu state decision It was until the questions. few brief of counsel conten tion of ineffectiveness day Appellant trial that realized next goals. three First is the tions combines unprepared- magnitude of counsel’s finding adequate opportunity for fact ness, only two for there were witnesses by the tri testify Appel- consequent sustainable decisions behalf of available lant, provid- developed neither of whom could have Second is a record al court. supporting Ap- eye-witness testimony by ed Finally, appellate review court. pellant’s theory. defense provided a state court there will have been justified which will be accorded decision any provided is evidence of kind There no any subsequent in federal court deference a assessment for this court make factual Consequently, review. we combine contentions, any nor factual of these Murray, default delineations actually by the assessment made trial 206; 198; Amin, Kallas, 776 P.2d 776 P.2d Actually, first counsel withdrew court. 597; Cutbirth, 751 P.2d 774 P.2d and quality repre- of the of his without defense 466 U.S. provided per- Washington, a sentation. Second counsel with Strickland record, including they certainly supporting tes- demands for witness were needed since documentation, realistically por- timony statements and credible was criti- to make defense best, trays, energized moderately at defense. cal. defense, If other witnesses were available for (1984) necessary 80 L.Ed.2d 674 determined that it is for serious specific allegations standard for constitutional review. and of ineffectiveness sufficiently to be stated and documented to Any finding analysis system fact con- show a real issue before the trial court can struction is divided into ineffectiveness of put to requirement be the additional allegations ap- initial counsel which the providing evidentiary hearing. Leach v. e.g., pellate dispositive, Bearpaw record is State, (Wyo.1992). 836 P.2d 336 The suffi- State, (Wyo.1990) providing 803 P.2d 70 — prerequisite cient statement of Leach is record, or, complete conversely, further mandatory. To be determined next is finding required opportuni- fact is after an whether existent is insufficient record ty necessary provided. to elicit evidence is to answer factual contentions relevant category appeals The first where involves factually disputable contentions. appellate record is sufficient for factual disposition. type resolution issue That Assuming initiating requirements of case is contrasted with cases where Leach have been met and some relevant the events at issue are not determinable exists, factual really process issue to be ap- from trial evidence documented in the might available involves alternatives which pellate Consequently, record. the record pursued by be either a requested factual supply does not a defined factual basis for hearing through before the trial court appellate general category decision. The or, thereafter, motion for a new trial finding might arguably of cases where fact conjunction appellate briefing for de required, most numerous within a broad fendant to file a motion for remand for an claims, array types includes instances ineffectiveness factual and deci appellant argues where a misunderstand- sion. (Wyo. Smizer v. ing testifying or misadvice his about 1992). counsel’s failure to call or purview Within the of current deci inadequately investigate prepare. Court, Supreme sions of the United States then, stages, In sepa- these issues can be findings and the decisional statement of (a) rated into: the ineffectiveness of trial sufficiently the state trial court should be contentions; which, allega- as an specific permit appellate normal review tion, sufficiently are that fact insubstantial justify this court and to deference with finding by the trial court could no corpus 2244 habeas re U.S.C. § substantive or material additional informa- Having view a federal court. first an tion, e.g., improper contention of advice to decision, swered the criteria of our we will plead guilty directly disproved by which is complicated then address the volumi specific transcript plea and sen- explain why. nous case Basic rules law tencing proceedings; (b) ineffectiveness of guide and direct the counsel; which, allegation, as an can system feasible and desirable.” both “[are] record; (c) be determined from the trial States, 1, 15, Sanders v. United contentions of ineffective assistance of counsel that involve facts external to the normally trial record which would involve IV. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BASIC advice, investiga- counsel’s conduct cases, considering ineffectiveness preparation. only tion and trial It is to this grouping categories well-defined into three third class that finding additional fact (a) representation exists: dual —conflict required presently analy- directed our cases; (b) counsel state interference sis. (c) situations; cases—extrinsic factor and separation, In first there is a basic re- challenged competency performance— of quirement regarding allegations of ineffec- intrinsic claims. ineffectiveness pro- tiveness of counsel in the initial trial ceeding any right which expand can foreclose to a We need not discussion to hearing, dispose representation whether remand or motion for of dual cases. a new trial. This court dispositively has rule is fixed and defined for

688 client); attorney and Davis v. representation cases. between of dual existence 1105, 308, Alaska, 44(c) compliance is 415 U.S. 94 S.Ct. 39 states that W.R.Cr.P. absence, (1974) (restriction on and, in situa L.Ed.2d 347 cross- mandatory conflict precluded defense from show examination require conviction reversal. Shon tions witness); (Wyo.1992); ing State, possible bias of and Powell v. 827 P.2d 361 v. gutsie Alabama, 55, 45, State, (Wyo.1992), U.S. 53 77 L.Ed. 287 S.Ct. v. Kenney (belated (7th (1932) inadequate Cohen, appointment, F.2d 158 Thompkins v. 965 330 Cf. issue, Cir.1992), prepare); dual time to v. rather than United States where cf. 648, 2039, Cronic, 466 U.S. 104 S.Ct. 80 representation, was defense counsel status. (claimed (1984) Litchfield, 959 L.Ed.2d 657 insufficient v. also United States See (10th Cir.1992). inexperience prepare time to of counsel F.2d 1514 dispositive in absence of demonstration inef category, second extrinsic counsel). specific of errors made claims, Waltz, R. Inade fectiveness see Jon category of ex There another these Representation as quacy Trial Defense of involving trinsic interference cases Post-conviction a Ground Relief lawyer/client invasion of relation state 289, Cases, Sol- 59 Nw.U.L.Rev. Criminal Israel, ships. supra, 2 See LaFave and (1964), likely subject more di would be 11.8 at in citation of v. 73 United States § original on the trial record. resolution Morrison, 361, 665, 449 101 66 U.S. S.Ct. general, categorized these cases have been (1981); 564 L.Ed.2d Bur (a) authority one to include: restriction Weatherford 545, 837, sey, 429 L.Ed.2d U.S. 97 S.Ct. 51 assistance; (b) ap upon late States, (1977); 385 30 v. United R. pointment Wayne of counsel. 2 LaFave Hoffa 293, 408, U.S. 87 S.Ct. Israel, Procedure, H. and Jerold Criminal (1966). See also Haworth v. 840 11.8 § J., (Wyo.1992),Urbigkit, dissent P.2d 912 category succinctly This of cases is de- ing, and cases therein considered. seminal scribed effectiveness pre- The contentions of ineffectiveness Strickland, 466 counsel ease of U.S. at for review in this involve the sented 686, 104 S.Ct. at 2063-2064: category per- ineffective third contended Government violates the to effec- legal upon formance of counsel based tive it in cer- assistance when interferes attorney’s intrinsic ineffectiveness. ability ways tain with the of counsel to Here, adopt pro- the courts refused to independent make about how to decisions reject phylactic standards and the as- See, the defense. e.g., conduct Geders sumption prejudice assessment States, 1330, 425 80 United U.S. S.Ct. [96 speculative part is too to be of the stan- (1976) (bar attorney- L.Ed.2d 592] judicial They turn in- dard review. during overnight client consultation re- analysis stead a fact-sensitive which cess); York, Herring v. New 422 U.S. impact quality seeks to measure the (1975) S.Ct. 45 L.Ed.2d [95 593] representation counsel’s under cir- (bar trial); at on summation bench cumstances of the case. individual Tennessee, Brooks v. 612- U.S. 1891, 1895, 32 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Israel, supra, [92 358] 2 LaFave and 11.10 § (1972) (requirement that defendant be commonly variety These cases include a witness); first Ferguson defense distinguishable of distinctive but functions Georgia, 365 U.S. 593-596 S.Ct. [81 including, representation; generally, 756, 769-770, (bar (1961) 5 L.Ed.2d 783] faulty delayed regarding plea or ne- advice defendant). on direct examination of decisions, gotiations McMann v. Rich- ardson, frequently Other cited United States Su- 90 S.Ct. (1970); preme addressing prepare, Court cases failure extrinsic L.Ed.2d 763 primary right interference include the Agurs, to United States States, (1976); counsel in Geders v. United L.Ed.2d failure presence 47 L.Ed.2d 592 interview and obtain (1976) (restriction (Wyo.1991); on v. overnight King conference

689 law, Till right essential to a fair unfamiliarity applicable damental States, conviction, ery v. United 419 A.2d 970 trial and defendant’s without by counsel (D.C.App.1980); counsel, decisions made violated the the assistance strategic than negligence on rather also Hollo- based See Amendment. Fourteenth Maryland, v. choice, 561 F.2d Arkansas, Marzullo 475, 489, way 435 U.S. 98 Cir.1977), cert. denied (4th 435 U.S. 540 1173, (1978). 55 L.Ed.2d 426 That S.Ct. 1885, (1978); 1011, 394 98 56 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. on right was extended initial highly appropriate trial ob failure to make California, 372 Douglas v. appeal, U.S. Henderson, 411 U.S. jections, Tollett v. 353, 814, (1963); 83 9 L.Ed.2d 811 S.Ct. 258, 1602, (1973); 36 L.Ed.2d 235 93 S.Ct. confined to initial and not a discre- Roundtree, 469 Pa. 241, Com. v. 364 A.2d Moffitt, 417 Ross v. tionary appeal, U.S. (1976); and, 1359 failure to contact known 600, 2437, (1974), 94 S.Ct. 41 L.Ed.2d 341 Richey, Pa.Super. Com. 249 proceedings, Pennsylvania collateral (1977). 365, significance 378 A.2d 338 The 551, 1990, Finley, 481 U.S. 107 S.Ct. partial of cases is to of the enumeration (1987). L.Ed.2d 539 that, cases, contentions illustrate some right to counsel extends ef easily disposi- can be of ineffectiveness record. Pen proper fective counsel and a original tively resolved from the trial rec Ohio, 75, 346, son v. 488 U.S. 109 S.Ct. ord; cases, in other it is most unlike while (1988); Lucey, Evitts v. L.Ed.2d 300 ly the trial record would 387, 830, U.S. 105 S.Ct. 83 L.Ed.2d 821 requisite information. Sullivan, (1985); 335, Cuyler v. analysis we are re- The fundamental 1708, (1980); 64 L.Ed.2d 333 S.Ct. quired is to understand the to undertake McMann, 1441; 759, 397 U.S. 90 S.Ct. Supreme structure of United States Court Iowa, Entsminger v. 748, 386 U.S. 87 S.Ct. decision-making subject of on the federal (1967); and Anders v. 1402, 18 L.Ed.2d 501 involving constitutional claims ineffective- 738, 1396, California, 386 U.S. 87 S.Ct. corollary procedural ness of counsel and (1967). L.Ed.2d 493 decisions, and forfeiture default —waiver necessity ap- determine which our or denial of a Interference with proach primary goal disposi- to reach a proceeding in right to counsel a state tion of contentions of ineffectiveness as subject federal issue to review vokes a completely may possible through as corpus, 28 through federal habeas U.S.C. proceedings state court where the state arising appeal, from direct whether § prosecution pursued. We deem was Penson, or col 488 U.S. S.Ct. primary responsibility adju- of the state it a proceedings, Humphrey Cady, lateral process dispose of issues dication involv- 1048, 31 L.Ed.2d 394 405 U.S. 92 S.Ct. ing proceedings in those the state court to (1972). possible. In realistically the extent of effectiveness of coun The issue pursuit, concepts are clear. certain directed ap involving intrinsic ineffectiveness sel Right to Counsel A. question of law and fact prehends a mixed ineffectiveness review and the standard for right pro- to counsel in state court is different than com by the federal courts ceedings required through the Four- monly applied in Fourth Amendment matter of effectua- teenth Amendment as a federal certiorari collat search and seizure Amendment to the United tion Sixth cases. eral review Powell, States Constitution. 287 U.S. challenge Finally, in federal habeas Zerbst, 55; Johnson v. 53 S.Ct. judgment, a state to a state criminal 82 L.Ed. rendered court conclusion that counsel Wainwright, Gideon v. finding is not a (1963), effective assistance right binding the federal court to the assigned indigent fact dispositively that an 2254(d). In- extent stated 28 U.S.C. defendant in a criminal trial has the § “basic, question is not a to have the assistance of counsel as a fun- effectiveness 690 668, Strickland, 466 U.S. 104 fac[t],” contentions. historical Townsend

primary, or Powell, 428 293, 309, 2052. v. Sain, n. 6 S.Ct. S.Ct. See also Stone 372 U.S. v. [83 465, 3037, 6, (1963). 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 745, 9 96 S.Ct. n. L.Ed.2d U.S. 755 770] (1976). Rather, question whether multi- This is the converse state like the particular inhibition to in a case default feder ple representation interest, it is corpus gave rise to a conflict habeas relief. Coleman v. al — —, 2546, and fact. See 111 question Thompson, of law S.Ct. mixed U.S. U.S., Sullivan, (1991); 342 446 at 640 Ylst v. v. 115 L.Ed.2d Nunne Cuyler [100 — 2590, Although maker, U.S. —, state court 111 S.Ct. 115 S.Ct. at 1714]. (1991); in the course of findings Cooper, fact made 706 v. L.Ed.2d Miranda (10th Cir.1992); claim are sub- deciding Kenley ineffectiveness 392 v. 967 F.2d Cir.), Armontrout, (8th requirement ject to the deference 937 F.2d 1298 cert. — 2254(d), although —, district court and 112 S.Ct. 116 denied § clearly subject (1991). the errone- findings are L.Ed.2d 450 Rule Civil standard Federal ous Supreme that The test 52(a), performance Procedure both generally is has elected to follow Court of the ineffec- prejudice components and Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686- enunciated inquiry questions of are tiveness mixed 104 S.Ct. 2063-2065: fact. law The Court not elaborated has Strickland, 104 S.Ct. at 466 U.S. at require- meaning of constitutional — Kenney Tamayo-Reyes, v. See assistance ment of effective [intrinsic U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. is, those ineffectiveness claims]—that (1992); 489 U.S. Peoples, v. Castille presenting “actual ineffective- claims of (1989); 1056, 103 380 109 L.Ed.2d Ex require- giving meaning to the ness.” Hawk, 64 S.Ct. parte ment, however, pur- must take its we (1944); Murray, Poyner v. L.Ed. 572 trial —as pose ensure a fair —to Cir.1992). (4th Ex 964 F.2d judging any guide. benchmark required. is of state remedies haustion must be claim of ineffectiveness whether undermined the counsel’s conduct so issue In the event that a factual pro- the adversarial proper functioning of undeveloped presented for review which is cannot be relied on as cess that proceeding in the state available result. having produced just court, pursued in factual is then review the federal court habeas ings. F.Supp. (10th Cir.1988); L.Ed.2d aff'd nied Shillinger, 902 F.2d 20 linger, 759 Knox v. 1990); Cir.1982). Capps v. (10th Cir.1988), appeal Wade — 971 F.2d 558 Osborn 28 U.S.C. § Sullivan, (Wyo.1991); Kennedy v. (D.Wyo.1986), F.Supp. 1554 Franzen, 959 F.2d 866 —, Osborn Shillinger, (10th See 2254(d)(2) (10th F.2d 260 678 F.2d corpus proceed also Shillinger, Cir.), aff'd (10th Cir.1992) after Cir.1990). (D.Wyo.1991), 861 F.2d 612 Braley (10th 861 F.2d cert. de remand Shil (7th Cir. (3); Cf. This counsel’s First, the deficient errors so serious that counsel functioning counsel’s assistance was Second, counsel's errors were deprive the defendant of death sentence has defense. A require defendant sfc requires showing that counsel made convicted the defendant must the defendant must This performance # reversal as the “counsel” performance prejudiced defendant’s claim that requires ^[*] the Sixth Amendment. of a conviction or two so serious as to ^[*] so defective as was deficient. a fair showing components. guaranteed show show $ that that jjc Unless a proper finding If a court fact trial whose result is reliable. state showings, it held, given can- hearing has been deference is defendant makes both finding said the conviction death the fact function of state not be regarding resulted from breakdown ineffectiveness sentence making the inherent in the the difficulties process that renders adversary the evaluation, indulge strong court must a result unreliable. * * * counsel’s conduct falls presumption that attor- proper standard for [T]he pro- range of reasonable within the wide reasonably performance is that of ney * * * is, assistance; that the defen- When a con- assistance. fessional effective complains presumption of the inef- the must overcome victed defendant dant assistance, the circumstances, that, of counsel’s the chal- fectiveness under the rep- that counsel’s must show “might defendant be considered lenged action objective an stan- fell below resentation strategy.” sound trial dard of reasonableness. the stan- an examination of In addition to appro- guidelines are not specific More a further representation, there is dard of Amendment refers priate. The Sixth to the defen- prejudice requirement “counsel,” par- specifying not simply to required: is dant assis- of effective requirements ticular perfor- in counsel’s [A]ny deficiencies legal pro- the relies instead on tance. It defense prejudicial to the mance must be suffi- maintenance of standards fessions’ assis- in to constitute ineffective order presumption justify cient to the law’s tance under the Constitution. the role in the that counsel will fulfill 692, 104 at 2067. Id. at the Amendment adversary process that * * * proper measure envisions. challenges a convic- When defendant simply remains attorney performance tion, there is a question the is whether profes- prevailing under reasonableness that, probability absent the reasonable sional norms. errors, had a would have the factfinder * * * Representation of a criminal defendant guilt. respecting reasonable doubt duties. Counsel’s entails certain basic determination, a court making defendant, and is to assist the function claim must hearing an ineffectiveness duty of the client a hence counsel owes be- totality of the evidence consider inter- loyalty, duty to avoid conflicts of judge jury. fore * * * counsel’s function as ests. Prom at 2069. 104 S.Ct. Id. derive the assistant to the defendant chal- “opportunity” or In addition to the overreaching duty to advocate the defen- op- an lenge court to to the state particular cause and the more dant’s proce- hearing, there is a portunity for a duties to consult with the defendant right/forfei- constitutional keep the de- dural default important decisions and processes court important develop- that state fendant informed of ture the event consider our prosecution. While we ments the course are not exhausted. finding duty bring to bear for this fact processes also has a Counsel state knowledge preclusion render recognize skill and as will opportunity, such we testing trial a reliable adversarial rules of federal provided in the default * * * process. appropriate event that some courts unused. and was opportunity existed exhaustively duties neither These basic 72, 97 S.Ct. Wainwright Sykes, 433 U.S. nor obligations of counsel define (1977) stage. set judicial for evaluation form a checklist * * * Supreme Court estab- States attorney performance. The United an unchal- in that case that lished the rule perfor- scrutiny of counsel’s Judicial * * * warning, lenged right before to a Miranda highly deferential. mance must be made, was inculpatory statement attorney perfor- A fair assessment habeas attack federal waived requires every effort be mance request a Jack- defendant’s failure to distorting effects made to eliminate Denno, son v. the circum- hindsight, to reconstruct (1964) hearing state conduct, L.Ed.2d challenged stances of counsel’s evidentiary court, raise an or otherwise from coun- and to evaluate the conduct resort to the challenge the issue before Because of perspective sel’s at the time. utilized if provided could also be Application of seldom proceedings. federal early enough to move expanded comes Wainwright rule has been identification of ineffective deprivation contentions new trial on the basis constitutional .a other requirement in the feder that the for review counsel with a available ness of otherwise which, yet evidentiary to a proceedings hearing be held on the motion. al habeas held, include clearly degree, Leach, If determined would P.2d initial findings counsel failures to by ineffectiveness of the of the record will be settled state the available ly present issue within will and that decision be the trial court — at —, Ylst, proceedings. U.S. court of by by application considered this 2593. 111 S.Ct. at of appellate review rule sub the normal sustaining evidence. True Oil Co. stantial application made for the rigorous The Co., (Wyo. P.2d 781 v. Sinclair Oil re redefined and forfeiture was waiver 1989). re decision for ineffectiveness The by Keeney, emphasized current case of the question fact presents — a mixed of and view U.S. —, 1715, 118 L.Ed.2d 112 S.Ct. court, — initially, law both the trial and 318; Sawyer Whitley, U.S. see also Strickland, appellate this court on review. (1992) —, 120 L.Ed.2d 269 112 S.Ct. 104 S.Ct. 2052. U.S. Isaac, 102 S.Ct. Engle and (1982), de procedural 71 L.Ed.2d 783 If these contentions of ineffectiveness fault, waiver, non-compliance forfeiture developed by appellate counsel are first contemporaneous objection Fur rule. with appellate during examination and record Wainwright rule application of the is ther briefing preparation, a for remand motion Murray, 477 in found Smith sup- appropriately be made and should (1986). Fur 91 L.Ed.2d defining by support- and ported contentions thermore, of counsel is inadvertence in ing any ineffectiveness claim detail and required escape Wainwright to cause by may appropriate, affi- supported, as be involving rule waiver forfeiture substantially. to establish davit sufficient Carrier, Murray default. Leach, adequate no 836 P.2d where Cf. provided justify to an eviden- support was for- preclusive

With the effect of waiver hearing. tiary remand question proba- feiture not in and now hearing, trial court will Following a finding by bility that a fact decision reliable addressing sepa- provide specific decision imposing def- given state will by examination and resolu- rate contentions erence, challenge will our to we answer inef- validity any tion of trial court in state court the state court settle issues Appel- fectiveness of counsel contentions. regular processes system. We establish briefing late can then include ineffective- hearing adequate where a factu- hearing transcripts and de- ness of counsel required to inquiry realistically resolve al any appeal conjunctively cision discus- deprivation contention of constitutional presented considering issues as sion other of counsel. Funda- of effective assistance claimed error the initial trial. adequately can mental fairness more and first in accurately be determined best CASE proceedings.

state court See LaFave and APPLICATION TO THIS V. Israel, (Supp.1991). supra, 11.10 at 45 § theory presented of defense How these vari- then do we accommodate of his in this case was lack Calene clearly proce- ant interests in the defined knowledge vehic of the status of stolen dural direction for trial court and counsel of counsel le. He claims ineffectiveness Wyoming practice? relating investigate failure counsel’s

First, may have present witnesses which if an ineffectiveness conten record, King, evidence. recognized tion is within the trial countered the state’s concept particularized in first P.2d 119. This inclusion of the issue should occur ap court in Frias v. reversal this statement of issues a fur- propriate (Wyo.1986). 722 P.2d There is briefing opportunity detail. An preparation regarding be rendered the standard dilatory ther contention performance. counsel required in a investigation which resulted hearing. preliminary Calene waiver of right of a defendant within lack contact with the alleges then any process this to secure on an for determination of trial useful- witnesses charge is far than ineffectiveness different general, is the failure to ness. requirements for actual relief in revers fol- investigate interview ing the Since has conviction. this court subpoena persons the Strickland by failure com- adopted lowed test for ineffective review, testimony to se petent give as an ness order defendant favorable cure the relief of a new he must first contention. ineffectiveness attor demonstrate the conduct of the King, 810 P.2d ney deficiency fell standard below do not assume or determine We and, further, competent practice a or that fail- valuable witnesses did exist failure, may been, as it was such have investigation preparation ure and ad- of actually Consequently, the test prejudicial. testimony to the versely denied valuable hearing for a to be held is the existence of We find contentions suffi- defendant. requirement for a substantial issue. pre- record now ciently substantial in the heavy relief is the of affirmative burden hearing a be held. At sented that should This prejudicial ineffectiveness of counsel. hearing, testify can defense counsel court has those criteria in follow addressed and can additional evidence Strickland Calene and ing a number of cases regarding the substantiation use- opportunity to the defendant for a favor noticeably non-called as evidence fulness of witnesses able has been conf conclusion upon may decision ined.5 which the trial court’s 70; Engberg, appeal. pro have P.2d Mil- Ineffectiveness of counsel issues viction-relief 820 State, major ingredient Stogner (Wyo.1991); vided a in the Su ler v. P.2d 1308 806 Among State, appellate opin preme (Wyo.1990); Court activities. Martin v. v. State, P.2d 1358 792 1, 1986, January only Kallas, published (Wyo.1989); ions since thir 776 780 P.2d 1354 by opinion 198; ty-six 206; Amin, decisions rendered written of Murray, 776 P.2d 774 P.2d P.2d clearly 543; 597; Schuler, court have included stated ineffec this P.2d Campbell, P.2d 771 772 counsel, appeal, ap 1217; and Cutbirth, tiveness of trial court 751 P.2d 1257. significant pellate cases, contentions. Most within Among remaining issues nineteen procedural have re that number been access presenting includ of ineffectiveness contentions hearing State, of some kind and not substantive re bargain, plea Duffy 730 v. ed: advice for State, of view of issues ineffectiveness themselves. Duffy (Wyo.1986); P.2d 754 v. 789 P.2d approximately opinion ap State, Within peals, 330 criminal (Wyo.1990); Duffy v. P.2d 1047 837 821 (Wyo.1992); thirty-six way State, those which in some (Wyo. 822 Flores v. P.2d 369 ineffectiveness, alleged only State, three have been 1991); (Wyo. 806 259 Osborn v. P.2d substantively State, this meritori 1991); reversed court as (Wyo.1990); 786 Lower v. P.2d 346 cases, conflicts ous. This does not include two Hamburg to and call failure interview Shongutsie, Kenney, State, 837 P.2d 664 and 827 P.2d (Wyo.1991); Laing, 746 v. P.2d 523 820 subject State, of 1247; where disassociative conflict Campbell v. P.2d 628 P.2d 728 involved, was or one other misde of interest (Wyo.1986); complaints and miscellaneous trial appeal counsel, State, remanded to meanor which was the dis 830 internal Miller v. conduct appellate State, where the trict court given first review was (Wyo.1992); Keene P.2d P.2d 419 v. 812 delayed Osborn, 259; establish decision a whose (Wyo.1991); Lacey v. 147 806 P.2d State, appellate State, Foote v. State, notice caused. (Wyo.1990); Murry v. P.2d 1988). (Wyo. P.2d 884 (Wyo.1986); P.2d external events con 713 trolling counsel, reversed, Among quality three of conduct of defense those cases defen- Frias, State, (Wyo.1986); acquitted Capshaw 714 P.2d was retried and 722 P.2d dant State, 135; prosecutor, and the conduct Schmidt v. the defendant was retried convic- 336; Gist, (Wyo.1987); denied time to investi tion reversed in 737 P.2d and the P.2d 1105 charge gate pleaded prepare, tactical or counsel defendant out his criminal after decision mistake, State, (Wyo. King, Consequently, Seeley reversal in 810 P.2d 119. State, 1986); (Wyo. rejected ineffectiveness was as a basis rever- Robinson P.2d 1986); pursue de appeal twenty-nine cases. and failure intoxication sal cases, charge, Among those first fense to a homicide Barron (Wyo.1991). of issues P.2d 412 forfeiture numbered default/waiver only rejected quickly apparent included It is that the successful the most cases when with the post-con- investigation subject and obtain- to counsel on avenue related similar has failure obtain preparation and in his places heavy em- appeal, Calene

In this potential testimony of several witnesses testimony Mr. from potential phasis on testimony allegedly would have been Allard, Ms. whose Hartwig, Lyons, Mr. Mr. theory of de- to the favorable defendant’s of a trial grant new Relief Martinez. fense, viz., knowledge that the he had no unless Calene likely unavailable will be no record con- was stolen. Since availability vehicle poten- he can demonstrate subject allega- cerning matter of these resulting testi- character of tial favorable existed, the trial court should have these tions or more of witnesses mony one from evidentiary hearing for exculpa- conducted cumulative not be which would and ob- purpose creating such record persuasion tory in burden his case. court upon which course, taining evidence appellant in dem- vested, upon decision make an informed about could ineffec- to the trial onstration allegations. validity of the ineffectiveness in re- prejudicial and is is shown tiveness simple procedure employed, been Had that sult. have had a com- appellate court would the de- plete upon to review record which VI. CONCLUSION have claims of error. Since we fendant’s remanded to This is reversed and case record, complete compelled we are no such to be held complete so that record can to remand of counsel con- regarding ineffectiveness made. appellant’s motion presented tentions otherwise retain remand. This court will

jurisdiction.

CARDINE, J., only. in the concurs result J., concurring

GOLDEN, opinion. files a McDONALD, Douglas Appellant J. Justice, GOLDEN, concurring. (Petitioner), agree majority that case I with evidentiary hearing for an be remanded concerning the ineffectiveness issues raised Wyoming, The DEPARTMENT STATE for new trial. In by the defendant’s motion TAXATION, Ap REVENUE AND OF distinguished jurist, “how the words of a pellee (Respondent). ever, agree packaging I do not with No. 92-33. publication.” majority opinion Smith, Wyoming. (Wyo. Supreme Court of Bowen P.2d 1992), J., Brown, concurring. Ret. Feb. simple. The the court is issue before trial, he motion for a new defendant’s allegations his

raised defense specific pre-trial in his

trial counsel was ineffective Gist, Frias, ing e.g. Supreme involving King. the con- United States Court has, however, right major this court stitutional under the Sixth Amendment issue with which faced, been for those who are was not basic contended ineffec- effective assistance of counsel criminally charged. counsel, Evitts, but examination of the tiveness of 830; Strickland, process appropriately S.Ct. available to method and 2052; Anders, complaints obtain a when were made S.Ct. 1396. concepts urgency particularly procedural manifested default as decision by recognition have constitutional waiver and default were cre- defaults specific topic ated. are this court ineffectiveness evalua- It is that which we shoved into provided simply specific more could been re- in this and for which tions which have origi- clearly defined and criteria to be solved examination of the rules are substantive provided prior stage hearing, at a when assistance and direction nal issue necessary, judicial system by specific and to accord with constitu- otherwise decision tionally required provided by hearing. trial court after a fair directives

Case Details

Case Name: Calene v. State

Court Name: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date Published: Feb 5, 1993

Citation: 846 P.2d 679

Docket Number: 90-264

Court Abbreviation: Wyo.