Opinion ID: 2062476
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Post Conviction Judge Employed An Incorrect Standard in His Assessment of Daneman's Representation

Text: Gilliam complains that the trial judge incorrectly articulated the standard for determining whether counsel's inadequate representation prejudiced the defense. The simple answer to this contention is that it is irrelevant, because: a defendant who hopes to show that counsel was ineffective ... has the burden of persuading a court that: (1) counsel's performance was deficient, and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. (Emphasis in original). Bowers, 320 Md. at 424, 578 A.2d at 738 (citing Harris v. State, 303 Md. 685, 696, 496 A.2d 1074, 1079 (1985)). In light of this two-prong test, even if the post conviction judge's articulation of the standard for evaluating whether an attorney's deficient performance prejudiced the defense was incorrect, any error was harmless. The judge did not find, as we do not find, that Daneman's representation was deficient. The first prong of the test was not met. Therefore, what standard would be used to measure prejudice, had Daneman been deficient, is simply irrelevant.