Opinion ID: 1058958
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Argue the Theory of Reckless Disregard in Speedy Trial Issue on Appeal

Text: In claims I and I(B), [2] Morrisette alleges he was denied the effective assistance of counsel on appeal because counsel failed to argue that the Commonwealth acted in reckless disregard of the probable prejudicial impact of the 19-year pre-indictment delay on his ability to present a defense to the charges. [3] This claim has no merit. The selection of issues to address on appeal is left to the discretion of appellate counsel, and counsel need not address every possible issue on appeal. Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751-52, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983). Furthermore, as Morrisette concedes, he did not make this specific argument at trial when he challenged the 19-year pre-indictment delay. Therefore, he would have been procedurally barred from raising the argument on appeal. See Rule 5:25. Appellate counsel were not ineffective for failing to present an argument that would have been procedurally defaulted.