Court Opinion

ID: 9734439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:34:55.415074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:48.618257
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
concurring.
I find it very unfortunate that three attorneys could not successfully obtain any review of appellant’s conviction, and that the first person to properly allege ineffectiveness in this case was appellant, a layman, proceeding pro se. It would indeed be a miscarriage of justice to hold that because of the actions of these counsel, appellant had now waived all issues, and I agree with the majority’s disposition of this case.
I also share Mr. Justice Flaherty’s belief that this Court should re-examine its standards for determining which issues will merit relief on collateral review. In fact, I would go farther and re-examine the standard for determining when a defendant had been denied effective assistance of counsel, regardless of whether the issue is raised collaterally or on direct appeal. This, however, is not the. appropriate case for deciding those questions, since there has been no appointment of new counsel, no hearing to determine the merits and facts underlying appellant’s claims, and the issue has neither been briefed nor argued.
EAGEN, C. J., joins in this concurring opinion.