- Litigants and court indentified
Petitioner- Appellant: Cecil G. Daniels
Respondent: State of Idaho
- Legal issue
In the following case, Court of Appeals reviews petitioner`s claim to reconsider the district court`s denial of post-conviction relief. The issue in the following case is whether the assistance of the appellant counsel was ineffective and deficient (failure to challenge the denial of suppression motion) to a degree that it led to the subsequent conviction of the appellant.
- Short of description of the case.
The petitioner, Cecil G. Daniels, was charged with driving under the influence felony, possession of controlled substances, driving without privileges, providing false information to police officers. During the trial, the defendant twice filed a motion to suppress all seized evidence, and both times the motion was denied by the district court. As the result, the defendant was found guilty and the district court imposed a unified imprisonment term of ten years for all convictions. Daniels filed a motion to receive post – conviction relief on the grounds that the assistance of trial and appellate counsel during the trial was ineffective. Daniels stated that appellate counselor did not challenge court`s denial of the suppression motion, which made her assistance ineffective. The district court dismissed motion on the ineffective assistance of trial counselor, and held an evidentiary hearing.
During the evidentiary hearing, the defendant and his appellate counsel testified. Daniels stated that he asked his counsel to raise the issue of the denial of the suppression motion in the appeal. Appellate counsel testified that she provided Daniels with her contact information, but Daniels contacted her only after the Court issued the opinion. Also, appellate counsel testified that she did not challenge the motion on suppression as that challenge had a little chance for success.
Court of Appeals, with reference to the relevant rule of law, held that the appellant is not entitled to a presumption of prejudice. Daniels argued that the performance of the appellate counsel was deficient because, according to him, the challenge to suppression would be stronger than the challenge to the sentence - the challenge that was made by the counsel. However, Daniels failed to explain exactly why the suppression challenge would be stronger than the challenge to the sentence. Moreover, Daniels failed to demonstrate that the counsel`s failure to challenge the suppression was prejudicial, as to establish the prejudice of the counsel the petitioner must show that the outcome of the trial would have been absolutely different if the counsel had not performed deficiently or ineffectively. The Court stated that the suppression of the evidence would not be the best defense strategy, considering that the search of the vehicle was fully within legal boundaries and the evidence obtained as a result of that search was admissible in court.
Thus, the Court denied appellant`s petition and affirmed the decision of the district court.
- Personal opinion
Considering the facts of the case and relevant rule of law, it seems that the decision of the court is fair and impartial. The ruling of the court reaffirms the importance of the constitutional right for the assistance of the counsel. Only well-educated legal professional is able to provide a client with competent advocacy during trial. A client should rely on the opinion of his lawyer, rather than on his personal understanding of the problem.
