Opinion ID: 853980
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Role of Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

Text: Some have suggested that waiver of a trial ineffectiveness claim is inconsequential (and the foregoing discussion is thus much ado about nothing) because there always remains a possible claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The argument goes that because the same claim may be repackaged as a challenge to appellate counsel's failure to raise trial counsel's effectiveness on direct appeal, the substance of the claim is addressed in either event. [20] However, for at least two reasons, the right to challenge appellate counsel's performance is not equivalent to a direct challenge to trial counsel's representation. First, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel requires the petitioner to overcome the double presumption of attorney competence at both trial and appellate levels. This is no mere quibble. Appellate lawyers must make difficult judgment calls in narrowing a broad range of possible claims to a select few that are thought to have the best chance of success. In this winnowing process, possibly valid claims may be eliminated due to page limits, time limits on oral argument, or the strategic judgment that the perceived strongest contentions not be diluted. Accordingly, there are situations in which a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel will succeed on the merits but fail if forced to overcome the presumption of effective appellate counsel. See Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983) (United States Constitution does not require appellate counsel to argue all nonfrivolous claims; appellate counsel noted possible claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel but declined to raise the issue). Indeed, we recently emphasized that reviewing courts should be particularly deferential to counsel's strategic decision to exclude certain issues in favor of others and particularly sensitive to the need for separating the wheat from the chaff in appellate advocacy[.] Bieghler v. State, 690 N.E.2d 188, 194 (Ind.1997). Other courts have made similar observations. See, e.g., Page v. United States, 884 F.2d 300, 302 (7th Cir.1989) (The threshold question is not whether trial counsel was inadequate but whether trial counsel was so obviously inadequate that appellate counsel had to present that question to render adequate assistance.). [21] Second, in elaborating the right to effective assistance of appellate counsel, the Supreme Court of the United States has never suggested that counsel must look outside the record for possible claims of error for the performance to be constitutionally effective. [22] To the contrary, courts adjudicating appellate ineffectiveness claims have rejected imposing this burden on appellate counsel. See, e.g., Kitt v. Clarke, 931 F.2d 1246, 1249-50 (8th Cir.1991) (Given that the jury separation issue was not preserved in the record, appellate counsel's failure to raise the issue cannot be considered deficient performance.); Wilson v. State, 565 N.E.2d 761, 764 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (where appellate counsel did not investigate trial counsel's effectiveness other than by thoroughly reviewing the record, appellate counsel acted consistent with accepted practice then prevailing). This Court has also resisted that view. See Bieghler, 690 N.E.2d at 199-200 (appellate counsel's failure to raise issues not apparent on the face of the record, in light of overall performance, was not grounds for reversal). Cf. Gray v. Greer, 800 F.2d 644, 647 (7th Cir.1986) (When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is based on failure to raise issues on appeal, we note it is the exceptional case that could not be resolved on an examination of the record alone.). Because there is no constitutional requirement for appellate counsel to search outside the record for error, an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim that is in substance a trial counsel claim requiring extrinsic evidence may be dead on arrival. In short, a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is not an adequate back door to a full adjudication of ineffectiveness of trial counsel.