Opinion ID: 504692
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Range of Professionally Competent Assistance.

Text: 14 The district court, without holding an evidentiary hearing, found that counsel made a tactical decision not to pursue the intoxication defense. 4 See Record, Tab 12, at 3. According to the record before us, however, no court has heard testimony from trial counsel regarding his decisions in pursuing Harich's defense. Without a hearing, it is impossible to determine whether counsel's failure to argue the intoxication defense was an actual trial tactic. To determine whether counsel was ineffective, we must first consider whether competent counsel could have reasonably decided not to pursue the voluntary intoxication defense. 15 Throughout the guilt/innocence phase of the trial, Harich maintained that he was innocent. He testified that due to the quantity of alcohol and drugs he consumed the night of the murder, he was unable to recall the events in detail. After reading the morning newspaper, he feared that he might be a suspect. Harich then contacted a local defense attorney and the two of them agreed that Harich would go to the police to explain his innocent role in the incident. The police, however, arrested Harich before he contacted them. Harich testified that his memory returned five months later. At that point he admitted driving the victims to the woods to look for marijuana and then dropping them off at a convenience store, unharmed. 16 Defense counsel faced a difficult dilemma. Harich admitted that he was with the victims that evening, yet insisted that he was innocent of any wrongdoing. He also indicated that he was under the influence of the drugs and alcohol that evening. Armed with these tough facts, defense counsel adopted the primary defensive strategy of asserting factual innocence. 17 Petitioner suggests that defense counsel should have employed alternative defenses. We believe that it was reasonable not to pursue alternative defenses beyond the length taken by counsel. 5 Harich testified that he was only mildly drunk and did not commit these crimes. 18 To suggest to the jury that Harich was so drunk that he could not have intended the consequences of these acts proved by strong evidence would have been totally contrary to and undermining of the position being taken by Harich himself. Although inconsistent and alternative defenses may be raised, competent trial counsel know that reasonableness is absolutely mandatory if one hopes to achieve credibility with the jury. 19 By handling the matter the way he did, defense counsel was able to inject the thought of diminished capacity (due to heavy drinking and marijuana) without totally rejecting the testimony of Harich. 20 Harich, 813 F.2d at 1105 (Fay, J., dissenting in part, concurring in part). 21 It is not enough for petitioner to claim that his lawyer was ignorant of the Florida law. Petitioner must prove that the approach taken by defense counsel would not have been used by professionally competent counsel. As the Supreme Court has stated, petitioner must overcome the strong presumption that counsel provided effective assistance.... There are countless ways to provide effective assistance in any given case. Even the best criminal defense attorneys would not defend a particular client in the same way. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065. 22 Considering that defendant denied committing the crimes, and testified as to his factual innocence, we conclude that the approach taken and the presentation made by defense counsel was one which falls well within the objective yardstick that we apply when considering the question of ineffectiveness of counsel. 6 We cannot say that by failing to pursue an intoxication defense, counsel's approach to this case was outside the range of professionally competent assistance. A competent attorney completely informed on the intoxication defense and faced with a defendant advocating his factual innocence could well have taken action identical to counsel in this case. 23