Case Name: John RION, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE Of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff)
Court: Supreme Court of Wyoming
Jurisdiction: Wyoming
Decision Date: 2007-12-13
Citations: 172 P.3d 734
Docket Number: Nos. 06-178, 06-179
Parties: John RION, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE Of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
Judges: Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 3d
Volume: 172
Pages: 734–737

Head Matter:
2007 WY 197
John RION, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE Of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
Nos. 06-178, 06-179.
Supreme Court of Wyoming.
Dec. 13, 2007.
Representing Appellant: Edward J. Batti-tori of Meek & Battitori, Baxter Springs, Kansas; and Raymond D. Macchia of Mace-hia & Associates, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee: Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armi-tage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Leda M. Pojman, Assistant Attorney General.
Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.

Opinion:
VOIGT, Chief Justice.
[¶1] The appellant appeals from his convictions for arson and felony property destruction on the ground that his trial counsel was ineffective. Pursuant to Calene v. State, 846 P.2d 679, 692 (Wyo.1993), this Court granted the appellant's Motion for Remand to Determine Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel. The hearing upon remand took place in the district court on April 12, 2007. Four witnesses, including defense trial counsel, testified at the hearing, the tran-seript of which is 120 pages in length. On April 24, 2007, the district court issued a detailed eleven-page Decision Letter in which each of the allegations of ineffectiveness was individually considered and rejected. An Order Upon Evidentiary Hearing was entered on May 15, 2007, in which the district court concluded that, because trial counsel's performance was reasonable and acceptable, there was no need to address the issue of prejudice.
[¶2] In reviewing the decision of the district court after remand, we defer to the district court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but we conduct a de novo review of the district court's conclusions of law, the latter of which includes the question of whether counsel's conduct was deficient. Strandlien v. State, 2007 WY 66, ¶ 20, 156 P.3d 986, 992 (Wyo.2007). It is of particular significance in the present case that the appellant bears the burden of proving deficient conduct, that there is a strong presumption that counsel's performance was competent, and that "we will not consider claims unsupported by cogent argument or pertinent authority." Frederick v. State, 2007 WY 27, ¶ 30, 151 P.3d 1136, 1146 (Wyo.2007), quoting Martines v. State, 2006 WY 20, ¶ 31, 128 P.3d 652, 665 (Wyo.2006).
[¶3] Despite the availability of the evidence from the remand hearing, despite bearing the burden of proof, and in the face of the above-recited standard of review and the district court's detailed decision letter, the appellant has presented to this Court only two and one-half pages of very generalized argument supporting his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. In effect, his brief is nothing more than a recitation of the allegations themselves, with no analysis of either the allegedly deficient conduct, or any prejudice that might have resulted therefrom. Consequently, we summarily affirm the determinations of the district court and the appellant's convictions.
. In determining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we apply the two-prong test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), wherein the appellant must show (1) that counsel's performance was deficient, and (2) that prejudice resulted. Frederick v. State, 2007 WY 27, ¶ 30, 151 P.3d 1136, 1146 (Wyo.2007).