Court Opinion

ID: 9532440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:21:22.642222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:45.878945
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, J., Concurring.
However remiss appellate counsel may have been in proceedings antedating the United States Supreme Court’s 1967 remand for consideration in light of Chapman, in my view petitioner suffered no prejudice as a result thereof because his efforts in propria persona were sufficient to secure to him all the relief to which he was entitled. However, I agree with the majority that in the particular circumstances of this case petitioner was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel by counsel’s failure, after the remand for consideration in light of Chapman, to offer any argument to the Court of Appeal regarding the application of the newly announced rule of harmless error. Counsel’s neglect in this regard is especially striking in light of the fact that at no time in the prior appel*353late proceedings had he made any argument to the Court of Appeal urging that the Griffin error was prejudicial.
In all other respects I concur in the opinion of the majority.