Opinion ID: 687644
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wilks' Sixth Amendment Claim

Text: 21 Even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that the district court abused its discretion when it denied Wilks' request for new counsel, such an error would be harmless if it did not result in a violation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. Zillges, 978 F.2d at 372. To succeed on appeal, Wilks must therefore demonstrate that the performance of his attorney was not 'within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases,' and that 'but for' counsel's deficiencies, 'the result of the proceeding would have been different.'  Id. at 372-73 (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). See also United States v. Zarnes, 33 F.3d 1454, 1473 (7th Cir.1994). Although he has failed on both counts, we address only the first. 22 Contrary to Wilks apparent understanding of the law, the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee a not guilty verdict. The mere fact that counsel's defense strategy was unsuccessful does not render counsel's assistance constitutionally ineffective. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065. We have consistently held that a reasonable tactical move which the defendant himself has condoned cannot be the basis of a Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance claim. Zarnes, 33 F.3d at 1473; United States v. Simone, 931 F.2d 1186, 1196 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 981, 112 S.Ct. 584, 116 L.Ed.2d 609 (1991). That counsel's trial tactics were reasonable in the present case is amply demonstrated throughout the record and in the case law. See United States v. Tabares, 951 F.2d 405, 409 (1st Cir.1991) (counsel's admission to jury that defendant was guilty of less serious offense was a tactical decision, designed to lead the jury towards leniency on the other charges and to provide a basis for a later argument for a lighter sentence); Simone, 931 F.2d at 1196-97; Underwood v. Clark, 939 F.2d 473, 474 (7th Cir.1991) (reasonable trial tactic for lawyer to conced[e] client's guilt of offense of which the evidence was overwhelming, and to focus his efforts on the weakest link in the [government's] case). The evidence of guilt with respect to Count 1 was indeed irrefutable, while the substantial step element necessary to prove attempted possession presented a much closer question. In conceding Wilks' guilt with respect to the one ounce transaction, counsel lent credibility to his argument that Wilks was only a small fish in the drug world. That Wilks condoned his attorney's trial strategy is evident from both the timing of his objection, and his subsequent withdrawal of that objection. We thus conclude, as did the district court, that counsel's performance fell well within the range of competence demanded of criminal attorneys, and did not constitute ineffective assistance.