Opinion ID: 852183
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Requesting Co-Counsel

Text: Finally, Baer argues that Maynard should have requested co-counsel. (Appellant's Br. at 41-42.) He does not cite any authority for the proposition that reasonably effective performance requires co-counsel on appeal. (Appellant's Br. at 41-42.) Baer does point to the testimony of expert witness Monica Foster, a good source, who thought a capital appeal was such an enormous undertaking that no single lawyer could handle one without co-counsel. (Appellant's Br. at 41-42; PCR Tr. at 715-16.) Neither the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct nor the ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases require appellate counsel to associate with co-counsel. We decline to hold that not requesting co-counsel in a capital appeal falls below that standard required by the Sixth Amendment. See Lowrey v. State, 640 N.E.2d 1031, 1041 (Ind.1994). Baer notes that [e]nlisting co-counsel could only have helped Maynard formulate and present all arguably meritorious issues. (Appellant's Br. at 41-42.) Maynard had been practicing law for twenty-seven years and specialized in personal injury and criminal defense. (PCR Tr. at 497.) Given the deferential standard of review Maynard was facing on many issues on appeal and the overwhelming evidence of Baer's guilt, we cannot say that requesting co-counsel would have changed the outcome. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052.