Opinion ID: 1697443
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Inexperience or Inadequate Preparation

Text: Finally, Gamble argues that trial counsel was deficient under Strickland because counsel was inexperienced, overburdened, and had inadequate time to prepare his case. Gamble argues that because of these issues, counsel conceded guilt to felony murder and conceded the pecuniary gain aggravator. Gamble argues further that although trial counsel testified that he regularly consulted with the chief assistant public defender on this case, the chief testified in a pretrial hearing that he only had a limited involvement with this case. Ineffectiveness under Strickland requires more than just a showing that trial counsel was inexperienced or overworked. Gamble must demonstrate with specificity that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the `counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Even if a defendant meets that threshold, he or she must also prove that such an error prejudiced the defense. Id. Gamble claims that trial counsel conceded guilt and conceded an aggravating circumstance, and these concessions amount to ineffectiveness under Strickland. As discussed above, the concessions do not meet the test for ineffective assistance of counsel. In Gamble's other allegation of ineffective assistance, that trial counsel exaggerated about the chief assistant's involvement, he attacks trial counsel's credibility. Even assuming Gamble's claim is true, he does not demonstrate how this rendered trial counsel's performance deficient or how it caused prejudice. The general accusation that trial counsel was inexperienced and overburdened likewise does not demonstrate deficient performance. On this issue, the trial court found that defense counsel had eight years of experience before he began working as a public defender and had done a substantial amount of criminal defense work before representing Gamble. The trial court also found that defense counsel's experience in trying other serious felonies adequately prepared him to hold the position of lead counsel in this trial. The trial court recounted all that trial counsel did in preparation for Gamble's trial, including counsel's travels to other states to interview witnesses, and consultations with other veteran and highly experienced attorneys in the Public Defender's Office. In addition, trial counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing that there were many attorneys in his office at the time with whom he could discuss ideas and strategy, and that he received advice on his strategy in this case. Thus, the record supports the trial court's finding that trial counsel utilized the advice of more experienced counsel in formulating his theory of defense. The mere fact that trial counsel was not as experienced as other attorneys does not establish ineffectiveness. For the reasons discussed above, we find that the trial court properly denied Gamble's motion for post-conviction relief.