Opinion ID: 1915707
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Investigation Was Reasonable

Text: Staats' first claim was that his trial counsel failed to conduct a proper investigation of events surrounding the incident. To support his claim, Staats asserted that his trial counsel: (1) did not receive all relevant discovery until the eleventh hour before trial; (2) only met with Staats for two, short meetings; and (3) failed to interview key witnesses who could have provided relevant and admissible exculpatory evidence, including an alibi defense. This Court stated in Riley v. State that [e]ffective representation by counsel depends upon `adequate investigation and pre-trial preparation.' [19] For Staats to prevail on his claim, he must show that counsel's actions fell short of an objectively reasonable standard and that there is a reasonable probability that, had it not been for counsel's deficient conduct, the results at trial would have been different. [20] A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. [21] Staats, however, must overcome the strong presumption that counsel's conduct fell within a wide range of reasonable professional assistance. [22] In Gattis v. State , the defendant-appellant argued in his motion for post-conviction relief that his attorneys unreasonably and prejudicially failed to properly and adequately prepare for trial when they failed to: (1) determine and develop adequately his version of the facts; (2) interview the relevant witnesses; (3) use the available means of discovering exculpatory evidence; (4) make appropriate objections during trial; and (5) have any unified theory of defense to the charges he faced. [23] He also contended that, because of his counsel's ineffective assistance, the State waited until the penalty phase to inform the defense of a witness' statements made in a police report that the defendant-appellant believed would have been helpful in his defense of accident. [24] In Gattis, this Court concluded that the trial preparation of defendant-appellant's counsel did not fall below the standard and did not cause the defendant-appellant to suffer actual prejudice. [25] In considering the viability of the accident defense in Gattis, this Court explained that, even if a nationally known forensic consultant had testified at trial, the testimony would have added no weight to [the] accident theory and would not have changed the outcome of [the] trial. [26] This Court also determined, based on a review of the record and affidavits of counsel, that counsel met with the defendant-appellant to discuss trial strategy, including the feasibility of the accident defense, interviewed neighbors and visited the crime scene. [27] Counsel also considered the need for a forensic expert to reconstruct the scene but ultimately rejected the idea and reviewed the physical evidence at the police headquarters. [28] In Gattis, this Court held that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendant-appellant's motions for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to show what evidence or course of action his attorneys should have presented or undertaken that would have resulted in a different outcome at trial. [29] After reviewing the trial transcript and the affidavit of Staats' trial counsel, the Superior Court noted that Staats' trial counsel received initial discovery before June 27, 2005, and wrote to the State on July 18, 2005, to request additional information to the extensive discovery he had already received. [30] Trial began on July 19, 2005. The Superior Court concluded that the discovery was received in sufficient time because Staats' trial counsel received the bulk of discovery in advance of the trial and the requests on July 18, 2005, mostly sought confirmation that additional information did not exist. [31] Therefore, the Superior Court determined that [t]he documents were received in such time that defendant suffered no prejudice and the defendant's argument was insufficient to establish ... that counsel's conduct was unreasonable. [32] The Superior Court also concluded that Staats' trial counsel conducted a sufficient investigation. Trial counsel had documented his meetings and communications with Staats. Further, the Superior Court concluded that Staats made bald assertions that counsel failed to interview key witnesses that were not supported by evidence or even mere names of potential witnesses. [33] Accordingly, we hold that the record supports the Superior Court's conclusion that there was no merit to Staats' first basis for asserting that his trial attorney's assistance was ineffective.