Opinion ID: 2630876
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Effectiveness of Levy's attorney at the suppression hearing

Text: ¶ 41 Levy next argues that the Court of Appeals failed to analyze whether his attorney, Charles Markwell, was ineffective at the suppression hearing because he failed to prepare for the hearing and his arguments were inadequate. Levy is incorrect that the court did not address this issue. ¶ 42 In order to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that the attorney's performance was deficient and that prejudice resulted. State v. McFarland, 127 Wash.2d 322, 334-35, 899 P.2d 1251 (1995). The Court of Appeals applied this rule and held that Markwell's arguments during the suppression hearing were appropriate in relation to the facts of the case and that Levy failed to provide evidence that a different outcome would have occurred. Levy, 2004 WL 1326813, at -8, 2004 Wash.App. LEXIS 1206, at -21. The Court of Appeals properly concluded that Levy did not demonstrate how Markwell's actions were deficient or how he was prejudiced, so this claim is also without merit.