Opinion ID: 2333284
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did defense counsel provide ineffective assistance by failing to object to the hearsay testimony and to the prosecutor's statements in his closing argument?

Text: [¶ 24] The appellant argues that he was denied his right to effective assistance of counsel due to defense counsel's failure to object to both the aforementioned hearsay testimony and the prosecutor's closing argument. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel will be reviewed de novo. Proffit v. State, 2008 WY 114, ¶ 33, 193 P.3d 228, 241 (Wyo.2008). Counsel's assistance will be found so defective as to require reversal of the conviction only when the following two requirements are met: First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Dickeson v. State, 843 P.2d 606, 609 (Wyo. 1992) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). [¶ 25] Defense counsel's performance was not deficient due to his failure to object to the hearsay testimony or to the prosecutor's closing arguments. Although we agree that impermissible hearsay was presented to the jury, we do not find that counsel's failure to object to this admission was so serious that defense counsel was not functioning as the `counsel' guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Id. The appellant asserts, without further analysis or citation to legal authority, that trial counsel's performance was deficient simply because testimony that was inappropriate and prejudicial was presented to the jury without objection. This argument does not adequately establish that trial counsel failed to render such assistance as would have been offered by a reasonably competent attorney[.] Teniente v. State, 2007 WY 165, ¶ 74, 169 P.3d 512, 533 (Wyo.2007). The appellant has the burden of establishing that counsel was ineffective and this argument does not adequately address how defense counsel's failure to object amounted to deficient performance. Id. Additionally, as stated above, see supra ¶¶ 20-22, the statements made by the prosecutor in his closing argument did not amount to misconduct and were reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence as submitted at trial, and therefore were not objectionable. [¶ 26] The appellant was not denied his right to effective assistance of counsel.