Umar Shahid v. Warden, State Prison (2014)

DECISION

THE COURT:  In this case the petitioner claims that his attorney was ineffective in failing to properly advise him regarding his decision to plead guilty and, in particular, failed to explain the evidence against him, failed to explain the strengths and weaknesses of the state's case, failed to investigate the facts and failed to object to the factual basis for the plea.   He also claims that his attorney was ineffective for failing to ask for two days of local jail credit.

The state produced one witness as to the jail credit issue.   The petitioner produced no live witnesses.

The Court has reviewed the exhibits and heard the arguments of counsel.

It is now well established that a criminal defendant is constitutionally entitled to adequate and effective assistance of counsel at all critical stages of the proceeding.

The United States Supreme Court has recently held that pre-trial negotiations implicating the decision to plead guilty is a critical stage in criminal proceedings for purposes of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.   The long-standing test for determining the validity of a guilty plea is whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.

This claim is governed by the United States, U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hill v. Lockhart.   To establish his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel the petitioner has the burden to show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel's errors the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.

When assessing trial counsel's performance, the habeas court is required to indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.

As to the petitioner's claim that his attorney was ineffective for failing to properly advise him as to the plea, the Court finds the petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof as to either prong.

The petitioner produced no witnesses.   The exhibits alone are insufficient to establish this claim, particularly here where the attorney, trial attorney was successful in negotiating a very favorable plea deal of three years, two years special parole, when the petitioner faced significant exposure on numerous charges had he gone to trial.

As to the two-day jail credit issue, the Court finds for the petitioner given the state's agreement and apparent concession.

Accordingly, the Court orders that the petitioner receive two days jail credit for the two days he spent in local lockup.

Since the petitioner has already served his prison sentence, the Court orders that two days be removed from the two-year special parole portion of his sentence.

# # #

Cobb, J.

Cobb, Susan Quinn, J.