Opinion ID: 2588599
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Was the appellant's defense counsel ineffective?

Text: [¶ 34] The issue of ineffective assistance of counsel involves mixed questions of fact and law, and is reviewed de novo.  Proffit v. State, 2008 WY 114, ¶ 33, 193 P.3d 228, 241 (Wyo.2008). The rules governing our review of trial counsel's effectiveness, which rules originate from the United States Supreme Court case of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), are as follows: 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. Proffit, 2008 WY 114, ¶ 33, 193 P.3d at 241. When reviewing such claims [w]e invoke a strong presumption that counsel rendered adequate and reasonable assistance making all decisions within the bounds of reasonable professional judgment. Gist v. State, 737 P.2d 336, 342 (Wyo.1987). The burden is upon the defendant to overcome this presumption that, in light of the circumstances, the challenged action or failure of the attorney might be considered sound trial strategy. Dickeson v. State, 843 P.2d 606, 609 (Wyo.1992). [¶ 35] Appellant contends his trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to request a limiting instruction regarding the State's uncharged misconduct evidence at the time that evidence was introduced; (2) failing to object to the content of the uncharged misconduct limiting instruction; and (3) failing to object to the qualifications of certain witnesses who were, or allegedly could have been, considered experts. We will address each of the claims in turn.