Opinion ID: 848709
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the law regarding ineffective assistance of counsel

Text: I agree with Justice KELLY that in People v. Pickens, 446 Mich. 298, 521 N.W.2d 797 (1994), this Court adopted the standard of ineffective assistance of counsel set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). To prove ineffective assistance, a defendant must show that his attorney's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, but for counsel's errors, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. Reasonable probability is defined as a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Strickland, supra at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (emphasis added). Unfortunately, Justice KELLY gives only lip service to the strong presumption that counsel's actions were sound trial strategy, and that every effort [must] be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight.... Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052. See also People v. Toma, 462 Mich. 281, 302, 613 N.W.2d 694 (2000), ([A] defendant must overcome the strong presumption that his counsel's action constituted sound trial strategy under the circumstances.); People v. Hoag 460 Mich. 1, 6, 594 N.W.2d 57 (1999); (the law affords a strong presumption that counsel's actions constituted trial strategy). In evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance, [j]udicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential  and should refrain from second-guessing counsel's chosen trial strategy. Strickland, supra at 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (emphasis added). Counsel's performance must be evaluated from counsel's perspective at the time of the alleged error and in light of the circumstances. Id. This deferential standard of review exists because it is all too easy for a court, examining counsel's defense after it has proved unsuccessful, to conclude that a particular act or omission of counsel was unreasonable. Id.