Opinion ID: 2043995
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: investigation of long's statement prior to pleas

Text: [4,5] As noted, Amaya entered pleas of no contest to the charges on which he was convicted. A plea of no contest is equivalent to a plea of guilty. [3] Normally, a voluntary guilty plea waives all defenses to a criminal charge. However, in a postconviction proceeding brought by a defendant convicted because of a guilty plea or a plea of no contest, a court will consider an allegation that the plea was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. [4] In his motion for postconviction relief, Amaya alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to [a]dequately pursue discovery in order to obtain information regarding Long's `[d]eal' with the prosecutor. [6-8] Familiar principles of law govern our consideration of this claim. In order to establish a right to postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, 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. [5] Next, the defendant must show that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defense in his or her case. [6] The two prongs of this test, deficient performance and prejudice, may be addressed in either order. [7] When a conviction is based upon a guilty plea or a plea of no contest, the prejudice requirement for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is satisfied if the defendant shows a reasonable probability that but for the errors of counsel, the defendant would have insisted on going to trial rather than pleading guilty. [8] To buttress his argument that his trial counsel failed to conduct sufficient discovery with respect to Long, Amaya directs us to an affidavit executed by Long in 2007, after Amaya filed his postconviction motion. In this affidavit, Long avers that in his July 16, 1998, statement to police, he falsely placed the blame on Amaya in order to exact revenge after police told him that Amaya had implicated him in the crimes. Long further stated in the 2007 affidavit that he did not know for sure what went on the night of the crime because he was so high and drunk that he could not remember what I was doing let alone what ... Amaya was doing. Amaya argues that Long's statement to police was the key piece of evidence against him and that if his counsel had done more to investigate, Long's statement would have been discredited before he entered his pleas. Without expressly saying so, Amaya implies that if Long's statement had been properly tested by his counsel, he would not have agreed to enter his pleas. [9] The record clearly reflects that Amaya's trial counsel did not accept Long's July 16, 1998, statement at face value. Before Amaya entered his pleas, counsel deposed Long with respect to the various statements Long had given to police. This questioning established that Long had at times lied to police, but he maintained that his written statement implicating Amaya in the crimes was true. Also, Long's plea agreement with the prosecutor was produced at his deposition. In a deposition received at the postconviction hearing, Amaya's trial counsel testified that Long's anticipated trial testimony was only a part of the body of incriminating evidence confronting Amaya at the time he entered his no contest pleas. Other items included the victim's blood on Amaya's shoe, the determination of a forensic dentist that Amaya had inflicted the bite wound, and various letters in which Amaya had confessed to the crimes. The district court agreed with trial counsel's characterization of this evidence of guilt as bordering on overwhelming. The district court also determined that Amaya's allegations that trial counsel did not adequately investigate Long's statements were patently frivolous. The court further determined that Long's 2007 affidavit had no credibility whatsoever, because it was impossible to separate fact from fiction in anything which Long says about this case or Amaya's involvement therein. Based upon our review of the record, the district court's findings of fact on this issue are not clearly erroneous, and therefore, we conclude that the court did not err in denying this claim for postconviction relief.