Court Opinion

ID: 9640494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:07:05.021249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:30.290653
License: Public Domain

ADELE HEDGES, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion regarding Layton Duer’s representation. I merely concur in the majority opinion disposition and judgment regarding Gerald Scheve’s representation. I would hold that, assuming without deciding that Scheve’s representation was ineffective, appellant has not met the second prong of the Strickland test with respect to that representation.
Appellant makes no specific assertion concerning how Mr. Scheve’s alleged ineffectiveness harmed him. The closest he comes is his testimony at the PSI hearing:
“The [prosecutor] said I couldn’t plead guilty to one and not guilty to the other two because from my understanding Mr. Chevy [sic] said that was going to be hard to argue the fact of that on the trial.”
What appellant does not say is that he would not have pleaded guilty to any or all of the three charges but for Mr. Scheve’s advice. Based on this record and appellant’s brief, I believe that there is not a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different had Scheve’s representation been errorless. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064-65, 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).