Opinion ID: 4511395
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Theory of the Case

Text: ¶ 48. Finally, although the PCR court determined that trial counsel’s assistance was ineffective because he failed to “develop and present to the jury . . . [a] defense which would have 6 In his supplemental reply brief, petitioner emphasizes that we should consider the cumulative effect of trial counsel’s ineffective assistance, including trial counsel’s failure to challenge the FBI’s false hair evidence. Although petitioner is correct that trial counsel’s errors must be viewed cumulatively, we cannot consider the false-evidence claim with the other ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims because the false-evidence claim was not before Judge Pearson and arises out of a separate decision with a different record and legal standard on appeal. 20 been consistent with arguable innocence,” the court concluded that petitioner failed to show he was prejudiced by this error. On appeal, petitioner argues that he was prejudiced because trial counsel had a potential theory of defense: “[Petitioner] was in Texas when his wife was killed and that Ricky Rodriguez and Denise O’Brien killed her.” To support this theory, petitioner argues that a call came from the victim’s home phone a day after the State claims the victim died, and at that point, petitioner was back in Texas. Petitioner also points to two pieces of evidence that would suggest O’Brien’s and Rodriguez’s culpability: (1) a State’s witness who identified two people— a man and possibly a woman—abandoning Amy’s car the morning of the murder (2) and police field notes indicating that the man in Amy’s car that morning was Rodriguez.