Opinion ID: 1130105
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Prepare an Adequate Defense

Text: Hovater claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney overly relied, to the detriment of the overall defense, upon the original information that charged Hovater with unlawful methamphetamine distribution within 1,000 feet of a school. When the prosecutor moved to amend the information to charge Hovater with unlawful methamphetamine distribution within 1,000 feet of a park, Hovater's attorney objected, stating: We are prepared to argue the case as far as a thousand feet from the school. That is one of the main things we focused on throughout. Despite this argument, the trial court allowed the amendment. Hovater contends that his attorney prepared no defense other than to rebut the State's allegation that the offense occurred within 1,000 feet of a school. However, the record shows otherwise. Hovater's main defense theory was that the methamphetamine belonged to Thorton and that on the morning of January 12, Thorton left his drugs at Hovater's home and then later that day, sold his drugs to Officer Faux pretending that the drugs belonged to Hovater. Hovater's attorney adduced testimony to this effect from two witnesses, Hovater and his wife. The same defense would have been pursued regardless of the crime's distance from the park or the school. His attorney's exuberance in objecting to the motion to amend the information does not contradict the fact that his counsel was prepared to proceed, and indeed did proceed, to defend Hovater by calling and questioning witnesses who testified as to his theory of defense. Hovater has failed to demonstrate that his attorney's intention to rebut the allegation that the crime occurred within a thousand feet of a school had a detrimental impact on the presentation of his primary defense  that Thorton sold the methamphetamine to Officer Faux.