Opinion ID: 853338
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Inadequate Presentation of Trial Counsel's Cross-Examination of McElroy

Text: Timberlake claims that appellate counsel ineffectively raised trial counsel's ineffectiveness in failing to cross-examine McElroy. Menadue challenged trial counsel's handling of McElroy, Timberlake, 690 N.E.2d at 260, but Timberlake now claims that she was ineffective in her handling of this claim because the postconviction record established that McElroy was under the influence of anti-psychotic drugs, was undergoing counseling, and had been threatened with the death penalty, all of which may have affected his perceptions on the day of the shooting and were not presented in her claim of trial counsel ineffective assistance of counsel. The postconviction court found this claim to be res judicata as to trial counsel ineffective assistance of counsel and did not address it as to appellate ineffective assistance of counsel. This claim asserts a type three Bieghler error. This Court observed that [c]laims of inadequate presentation of certain issues, when such were not deemed waived in the direct appeal, are the most difficult for convicts to advance and reviewing tribunals to support. Bieghler, 690 N.E.2d at 195 (emphasis in original). These claims are reviewed under the highest standards of deference to counsel's performance and relief will be awarded only where the appellate court is confident it would have ruled differently. Id. at 196. We do not believe that Timberlake has established either prong of the Strickland test with respect to this claim. Menadue's failure to include evidence of McElroy's medications in her challenge to trial counsel's handling of his cross-examination does not rise to the level of deficient performance given the role and function of appellate counsel on direct appeal. First, Menadue cannot be measured by information unknown to appellate counsel but later developed after the appeal by post-conviction counsel. Ben-Yisrayl, 738 N.E.2d at 261. Second, McElroy was questioned extensively at trial and at postconviction and his version of events never changed with respect to his identification of Timberlake. Timberlake, 690 N.E.2d at 252 (McElroy did not waver in his identification of defendant as the shooter, nor was his testimony unsupported by other witnesses or circumstantial evidence. The jury was aware of the inconsistencies and was faced with the responsibility of judging the credibility of the witnesses and determining what occurred.). Finally, the record challenging this omission does not establish a reasonable probability that McElroy's perception was clouded. [7] The postconviction evidence therefore does not establish a reasonable probability of a different result. Because Timberlake did not establish trial counsel ineffectiveness on this point, he cannot establish that appellate counsel was ineffective for inadequate presentation of this issue.