Court Opinion

ID: 9706754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:50:58.455972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:24.770483
License: Public Domain

*371Weaver, J.
(dissenting). I agree that this Court erred in its prior opinion in this case. However, I disagree with the majority’s decision to vacate defendant’s conviction on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. This issue was never raised by defendant either in the trial court or in his appellate brief. Even if it had been properly raised and preserved, I would find no ineffective assistance of counsel.
To me, trial counsel’s request for the two jury instructions was trial strategy, not ineffective assistance of counsel or a mistake. Contrary to the majority’s opinion, it is a strategy that very well may have worked. It is just as possible that it prevented defendant from being convicted of a greater charge as that it caused him to be convicted of any charge at all.
The fact that the two crimes carry the same penalty is not the only factor in deciding whether it was to defendant’s advantage not to be convicted of the greater charge. The greater charge was a delivery charge, while defendant was convicted of possession. The nature of the charge upon which the conviction rested would certainly be a factor in sentencing; it would be considered in determining whether defendant would be eligible for probation, and if so for how long.
I do not believe there was ineffective assistance of counsel, and I would affirm defendant’s conviction.