Opinion ID: 3150586
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the strickland two-part test

Text: [¶52] The Court’s opinion states: “To prevail in a post-conviction proceeding based on an alleged constitutional deprivation of counsel, the petitioner must demonstrate two points: first, ‘that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,’ and second, that ‘errors of counsel . . . actually had an adverse effect on the defense.’” (¶ 14, citing and quoting Strickland). [¶53] Previously, we have described the petitioner’s burden on ineffective assistance of counsel claims as a two-part test: “First, we consider ‘whether there has been serious incompetency, inefficiency, or inattention of counsel amounting to performance . . . below what might be expected from an ordinary fallible attorney.’ Second, we determine ‘whether any such ineffective representation likely deprived the defendant of an otherwise available substantial ground of defense.’” Gauthier v. State, 2011 ME 75, ¶ 12, 23 A.3d 185 (citations omitted). See also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686, noting that the “prejudice” or “adverse effect” test involves an inquiry into whether “counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper 17 Peter L. Murray, Basic Trial Advocacy, 157-158 (1995). 33 functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” [¶54] Following this general observation, the Strickland opinion articulates its widely used two-part test: A convicted defendant’s claim that counsel’s assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction or death sentence has two components. First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show 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. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable. Id. 687.18