Court Opinion

ID: 9836829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:11.201246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.007904
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(concurring in the result):
First, I do not believe this is a case involving waiver. Waiver entails the “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1992). Appellant’s counsel did not waive the claim of error in the Victim Impact Statement attached to the staff judge advocate’s (SJA) recommendation because she responded to it in a timely manner by: (1) requesting that the SJA remove the material at issue; (2) filing an extraordinary writ petition in the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals; and (3) requesting that the SJA delay action until the petition was reviewed.
In my opinion, appellant’s claim is really one of ineffective assistance of counsel. Cf. United States v. Pierce, 40 MJ 149 (CMA *1611994). An appellant is entitled to effective post-trial representation, which is judged under the Strickland, v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), standard. See, e.g., United States v. Wiley, 47 MJ 158 (1997); cf. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 105 S.Ct. 830, 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985). The appellant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced appellant. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
This case involves poor, but not ineffective, lawyering. Defense counsel was aggressive and zealous in taking this post-trial matter to the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals by an extraordinary writ process. However, defense counsel failed to take a crucial extra step by only asking for a delay in submitting the SJA’s recommendation to the convening authority until the Court of Appeals acted. Defense counsel should have also requested an extension of time to reply to the SJA recommendation. See RCM 1106(f)(5), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1995 ed.).
I would resolve this case under the prejudice prong of Strickland. “The defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Appellant has not convinced me that the convening authority would have acted differently had appellant been able to reply to the SJA’s recommendation. Appellant had already submitted various post-trial matters to the convening authority.
Defense counsel’s actions were not prejudicial to appellant. To the contrary, defense counsel’s actions did result in some relief regarding the SJA recommendation: the SJA redacted a portion of the material at issue in the Victim Impact Statement. Accordingly, I join the majority’s affirmance of the lower court opinion.