Opinion ID: 1958816
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Harris's Allegations of Error

Text: Harris could have been more definitive in satisfying his obligation to identify the specific errors made by Russell. In any event, we glean from his brief that his allegations of unreasonable professional conduct concern: (a) The tender of the plea of guilty to first degree murder. (b) The failure to limit the plea on the murder charge to felony murder. (c) The failure to distinguish between a principal in the first degree and a principal in the second degree as to first degree murder. (d) The content of the agreed statement of facts. (e) The failure to make a full investigation. (f) Russell's inexperience and burden of a heavy case load. Since [f]ailure [by Harris] to make the required showing of either deficient performance or sufficient prejudice defeats the ineffectiveness claim, Strickland, 104 S.Ct. at 2071, we shall assess allegations (a), (c), (d) and (e) initially under the deficiency component, and allegation (b) under the prejudice component. We shall dispose of Harris's claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because of Russell's inexperience and heavy case load (allegation (f) supra ) after we have evaluated Russell's performance under the other allegations. We note preliminarily that Harris was afforded open discovery. Russell had complete access to the State's files and had inspected them and consulted with the prosecutors on several occasions. The record before us does not indicate that Russell was derelict in the general duties to consult with Harris on important decisions and to keep him informed of important developments in the course of the prosecution. See Strickland at 2065.