Opinion ID: 2229974
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether deserly was denied effective assistance of counsel.

Text: Deserly contends he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not investigate the amount of damage done to the gates at Sioux Valley Hospital. Deserly argues that a cursory investigation would have revealed the damage was only fifty dollars and therefore could not support a felony conviction for damage to personal property. Deserly correctly notes that [a]n attorney must make reasonable investigations or make reasonable decisions to forego particular investigations. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In order to prevail, Deserly must show that his counsel was ineffective and there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's [ineffectiveness], the results of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. Aliberti v. Solem, 428 N.W.2d 638 (S.D.1988). Deserly claims the results would have been different because he would not have entered the plea of guilty had he been aware that the felony criminal damage to property charge was groundless. The record demonstrates that this contention is false. After Deserly pled guilty, the court services officer discovered that the damage was only fifty dollars. Deserly learned that fact prior to sentencing. At that point he and his attorney knew the damage to the gates did not rise to the level of a felony. Yet, Deserly did not attempt to withdraw the guilty plea. In fact, at sentencing, Judge Amundson specifically asked Deserly if he still intended to plead guilty. Deserly stood by his guilty plea even when he was aware the damage to the gates was only fifty dollars. The habeas court is affirmed.