Opinion ID: 2128105
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: wabashaw's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel

Text: [21-23] Wabashaw claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel in several respects. We need not dismiss an ineffective assistance of counsel claim merely because a defendant raises it on direct appeal. [28] The determining factor is whether the record is sufficient to adequately review the question. [29] But if the defendant has not raised ineffective assistance of counsel at the trial level and it requires an evidentiary hearing, we will not address the matter on direct appeal. [30] [24-26] To establish a right to relief because of ineffective counsel at trial or on direct appeal, the defendant has the burden first to show that counsel's performance was deficient; that is, counsel's performance did not equal that of a lawyer with ordinary training and skill in criminal law in the area. [31] Next, the defendant must show that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defense in his or her case. [32] To prove prejudice, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. [33] A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. [34] When a defendant challenges a conviction, the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that absent the errors, the fact finder would have had a reasonable doubt concerning guilt. [35]