Opinion ID: 889039
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did Crawford's counsel render ineffective assistance by failing to interview witnesses or by failing to question the initial search of Crawford's residence?

Text: ¶23 The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II § 24 of the Montana Constitution guarantee a defendant's right to counsel in a criminal proceeding. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are analyzed under the two-part test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984), which requires the defendant to show (1) that counsel's performance was deficient, and (2) that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defense. The defendant must satisfy each prong of the Strickland test in order to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, but there is no need to conduct the analysis in any particular order; if either prong cannot be satisfied, the other need not be addressed. Whitlow, ¶¶ 10-11. ¶24 Crawford claims that LaFountain rendered ineffective assistance by failing to question the search of his residence and by failing to interview witnesses. He claims that LaFountain's failure to question the search clearly establishe[d] that his performance fell below an objectively reasonable standard . . . . However, we are not required to address Crawford's claim with respect the first prong since we conclude that Crawford cannot establish that LaFountain's performance prejudiced his case. To establish the second Strickland prong, Crawford must show that LaFountain's performance prejudiced his case to the extent that a reasonable probability exists that the result of the proceeding would have been different had counsel not performed ineffectively. Weaver v. State, 2005 MT 158, ¶ 15, 327 Mont. 441, 114 P.3d 1039. LaFountain represented Crawford for the first eight months of the proceedings before Brown took over as Crawford's counsel. Brown represented Crawford for approximately ten months until Crawford pleaded guilty. During Brown's representation, as noted by the State, Crawford's mental health evaluations were completed, the UA test results were requested, and Crawford obtained an extremely beneficial plea bargain in which the State agreed to drop the second felony count and to forego its pursuit of a persistent felony offender designation. Since Brown either completed or undertook the actions Crawford now complains of, he cannot demonstrate that his case would have been different had LaFountain taken those actions. Thus, we conclude that LaFountain did not render ineffective assistance. ¶25 Affirmed. JIM RICE, PATRICIA COTTER, JOHN WARNER, BRIAN MORRIS, We concur: