Opinion ID: 1805034
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: whether petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel?

Text: Stumes argues that appellate counsel was ineffective because the sufficiency of the evidence claim concerning the heat of passion element was not included on the direct appeal. The South Dakota Supreme Court has held that to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, two requirements must be shown: First, ... that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as counsel guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, ... that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Miller v. Leapley, 472 N.W.2d 517, 518 (S.D. 1991), (citing Luna v. Solem, 411 N.W.2d 656 (S.D.1987)). Sufficiency of evidence was addressed in both the federal district court, Stumes, 511 F.Supp. at 1324-5, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, Stumes, 671 F.2d at 1158. In both cases, the reviewing court found the issue to be without merit. Where substantially the same issue was raised on direct appeal as in habeas review, the principle of res judicata is applicable to proceedings upon habeas corpus. Miller v. Leapley, 472 N.W.2d at 519.