Opinion ID: 1341304
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Failing to Adequately Prepare the Case

Text: The State claims the PCR judge erred in finding trial counsel ineffective for failing to adequately prepare respondent's case. We agree. According to its order, the lower court specifically found counsel ineffective: In failing to adequately and sufficiently meet with the Applicant and permit the Applicant to fully participate in the defense of this matter. Respondent testified counsel met with him briefly when he advised him to waive his preliminary hearing, when he was first offered a plea bargain, and a week before trial when counsel again discussed a guilty plea. According to respondent, he never discussed the facts of the case until the day before his trial when counsel again attempted to convince respondent to plead guilty. Respondent agreed to plead guilty; however, respondent changed his mind during the plea and proceeded with a jury trial. Respondent testified counsel advised him not to testify, told him the defense would be the victims owed him drug money, and refused respondent's request to subpoena Stanford. Counsel testified at the PCR hearing he did not recall the number of times he met with respondent, but it was probably three or four times and that he did talk with him several times about the case. Counsel stated he discussed with respondent calling Bennerman, but decided to leave that decision until trial. According to counsel, respondent never asked him to call Stanford as a witness. Counsel testified he had filed a discovery request and had reviewed the materials in the solicitor's file, including Stanford's statement. In our opinion, the PCR judge erred in finding counsel ineffective in preparing respondent's case. Respondent failed to present any evidence of what counsel could have discovered or what other defenses respondent would have requested counsel pursue had counsel more fully prepared for the trial. Thus, respondent has failed to show his counsel's lack of preparation prejudiced him, and no probative evidence supports the PCR judge's findings on this issue. Satterwhite v. State, supra . Instead, the PCR judge's order is based on respondent's speculation that counsel could have done a better job representing respondent if he spent more time with him. Glover, supra (speculation and conjecture will not support a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel).