Opinion ID: 853073
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Allowing French to Appear in Jail Garb at the Habitual Offender Proceeding

Text: Finally, French contends he had ineffective assistance of counsel because his counsel allowed French to appear before an entirely new jury for trial on the habitual offender enhancement charge in jail clothes, handcuffed, and shackled. At the post-conviction proceeding, his attorney did not recall any conversations with French with respect to his appearing in jail clothes. She stated, It's my understanding he had clothing over there. And I think it was his choice to do that. She stated that she did not tell French that it did not matter if he was in jail clothes because it was only a habitual proceeding. French, however, recalled that when his attorney saw French in jail clothes before the habitual phase of the trial began, she asked him why and was told he had not been allowed to dress. According to French, his attorney responded that it didn't matter because he had already been convicted. The attorney denied this exchange and stated she would never let a defendant appear before a jury in jail clothes without talking to the defendant about it and if the defendant objected, [she] would have talked to the Judge. For the reasons given in Part I of this opinion, French was not denied due process by appearing at the habitual offender proceeding in handcuffs, shackles, and jail clothing. We cannot say that this inconsistent evidence established that counsel was ineffective or inadequate in the manner in which she carried out her duties to his client. In any event, it seems clear that the result of the proceeding was not affected by counsel's performance. The issue at this proceeding was whether French had two prior felony convictions. As to that, the evidence was clear, and French has failed to show prejudice from his counsel's failure to object to his wearing jail clothes.