Opinion ID: 2162538
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Legal Malpractice

Text: The standards for proving ineffective assistance of counsel in a criminal proceeding are equivalent to the standards for proving legal malpractice in a civil proceeding. [8] It therefore was appropriate in this case for the Superior Court to have applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel if the issue of Malik's competency actually was litigated and decided in Sanders' criminal proceedings. [9] In Sanders' case, his present allegations, in all material respects, encompass the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel that were raised and rejected by the Superior Court in his postconviction proceedings. It does not matter that Sanders raised only some, but not all, of these issues when he appealed to this Court from the Superior Court's postconviction ruling. The Superior Court's postconviction ruling was a valid, final judgment on the issues he now raises. He raises no new material contentions. Under the circumstances, we agree with the Superior Court's holding that Sanders' civil lawsuit was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The judgment of the Superior Court is therefore AFFIRMED.