Opinion ID: 1970062
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial Counsel Ineffective Assistance

Text: Furthermore, Stone's claim that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel also is without merit. In support of this claim, the only specific deficiencies alleged by Stone are that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview certain alleged alibi witnesses suggested by Stone, for failing to seek the sequestration of the State's witnesses, and for failing to suppress or refute evidence of a boot print that was presented by the State to link Stone to the burglary of a church. With respect to this last assertion, the record reflects that the jury acquitted Stone of the charges related to the burglary of the church. Consequently, Stone cannot establish any prejudice arising from counsel's allegedly deficient performance in refuting or suppressing evidence related to those charges. Moreover, even assuming that Stone's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview and present certain witnesses at trial and in failing to have the State's witnesses sequestered, Stone fails to demonstrate how the presentation of his alleged alibi witnesses or the sequestration of the State's witnesses would have affected the outcome of his trial. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. Consequently, these claims must fail because Stone has failed to sustain his burden of setting forth concrete allegations of actual prejudice. Younger v. State, 580 A.2d at 556.