Opinion ID: 874801
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Deprivation of effective assistance of counsel due to lack of qualifications

Text: Shackelford first contends that his right to effective assistance of counsel was violated because Ray Barker was not on the Idaho Supreme Court roster of attorneys qualified for appointment as lead counsel in death penalty cases pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 44.3. The State counters that the district court held a hearing regarding Barker's qualifications and expressly noted that I.C.R. 44.3 had been suspended, [10] which Shackelford did not dispute. In addition, the court found Mr. Barker qualifies by experience to be lead counsel, as permitted under I.C.R. 44.3(8). [11] However, I.C.R. 44.3(8) did not exist until the rule was amended and became effective March 15, 2001. Instead, when Shackelford was appointed counsel, the rule existed in a form very similar to what it is today, just without sub-section 8. See I.C.R. 44.3 (2000). In State v. Hairston, 133 Idaho 496, 988 P.2d 1170 (1999), this Court addressed qualifications of counsel in capital cases without relying on I.C.R. 44.3. In Hairston, the defendant alleged ineffective assistance of counsel because neither of his attorneys representing him had any prior trial experience in capital cases. Hairston, 133 Idaho at 511, 988 P.2d at 1185. The Court found his argument unpersuasive and stated: Counsel was not ineffective solely because of inexperience in capital trials. The constitution does not establish a minimum level of experience for the appointment of counsel in a death penalty case. Id. While I.C.R. 44.3 was in effect at the time Shackelford was appointed counsel on February 15, 2000, Shackelford has failed to demonstrate how the appointment of counsel not listed on the Idaho Supreme Court roster pursuant to the rule automatically resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel. He simply argues that Mr. Barker was not on the roster and his lack of qualifications contributed to violations of Shackelford's right to effective assistance of counsel. The district court evaluated Mr. Barker's qualifications and expressly found that he was qualified based upon the standards for qualification laid out in I.C.R. 44.3: I do make a finding that even though Rule 44.3 has been suspended by the Idaho Supreme Court that Mr. Barker qualifies by experience to be lead counsel. I also make a finding that Mr. Mahaffy qualifies as co-counsel under the rule that has been suspended. And I do conclude that Mr. Barker and Mr. Mahaffy provide adequate representation for Mr. Shackelford in a capital case. We find that Shackelford has not demonstrated that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or that he was in anyway prejudiced by counsel not being on the Idaho Supreme Court roster.