Court Opinion

ID: 9755328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:35:05.501154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:06.329680
License: Public Domain

Dissenting opinion by:
PAUL W. GREEN, Justice.
I respectfully dissent. The majority concludes Rylander’s counsel was ineffective because he failed to call a medical witness to support the only viable defense, which was that Rylander’s actions at the time of the offense were not voluntary due to a medical condition. There is no evidence, however, that any doctor, including Dr. Ng, was actually prepared to testify in support of Rylander’s defense, nor is there evidence of what the doctor would have testified to concerning Rylander’s medical condition. Without such evidence, Rylan-der is unable to show the harm that is required to establish ineffective assistance of counsel.
*126It is entirely possible that trial counsel was doing his best at presenting a defense with little to work with. There are various possibilities. If, indeed, there was a doctor who could have testified, maybe he was uncooperative. Or perhaps the medical evidence was actually less than beneficial to Rylander and counsel made the appropriate decision not to use it. Or maybe the truth is there never was a doctor. Regardless, we are not in a position, with this record, to make any assumptions concerning counsel’s strategy in presenting the involuntariness defense.
To say Rylander’s lawyer was ineffective because he failed to present medical testimony when we do not even know if such a witness was available is going too far. Accordingly, I dissent.