Did you know this happens?

[madmusic]

People v. Mesa (Cal. Ct. App. - Nov. 14, 2006)
I really like Justice Johnson's concurrence in this case. You don't read many of them -- from any judge or justice -- that begin like this, either in style or in substance:

"While I initially planned to dissent in this case, my colleagues’ opinion persuaded me the prevailing standard of review for claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel requires a 'reasonable probability' of a different outcome, even when that ineffective assistance results in the deprivation of defendant’s federal constitutional rights. (Maj. Opn. at pp. 8-12.) I write separately, nonetheless, to register my concern this approach is not sufficiently protective of vital constitutional rights, such as a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right not to testify. In my view, when a lawyer’s ineffective assistance costs a defendant such a right only application of the Chapman standard will afford the essential protection. That is, when as here a defense counsel’s failure to object deprives defendant not just of his constitutional right to effective representation but to another constitutional right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution the conviction should be reversed unless the court can make a finding 'beyond a reasonable doubt' the error did not affect the outcome."

http://calapp.blogspot.com/

Bold added because, well, there are the important parts. :)

Did you know a bungling lawyer (ineffective counsel) could surrender a constitutional right that could change the outcome of the trial and there's not much the defendant can do about it? It's like a doctor leaving a sponge in ya during an operation. Oh, well, that's what you get for trusting the doctor. Shoulda got a better one!

[madmusic]

1. After all, we're talking years and years of additional time in a not-so-fun prison

Note: PSR is the pre sentencing report.

U.S. v. Santiago (9th Cir. - Oct. 23, 2006)
When you're defending someone who may well be sentenced to 25+ years in prison, it may help to actually pay attention. Imagine, for example, that your client -- let's call him, hypothetically, Jesus Santiago -- has been convicted of distributing methamphetamine, and under the guidelines the appropriate sentence depends a lot on how much meth he distributed. He only actually sold, say, three kilos to the cops, but the PSR nonetheless suggests that he be sentenced for selling 17 to 104 kilos, since he's almost certainly been doing this for a while.

Wouldn't you go ahead and make an objection to the PSR on that ground? After all, we're talking years and years of additional time in a not-so-fun prison, after all. And wouldn't you definitely, totally, for sure make a written objection to the PSR if the district court judge -- let's say, again hypothetically, Judge Terry Hatter -- doesn't seem to like like the way in which the amount of drugs were calculated, and even says on the record that he "ha(s) some concern about how the total amount of drugs was arrived at"?

Sure, Judge Hatter's sentence ends with a proposition. But that's no reason not to object to the PSR.

Sadly -- at least for the hypothetical Jesus Santiago in this not-so-hypothetical case -- counsel for the defendant doesn't seem to be paying attention, and makes no such objection. And hence, absent such an objection, the Ninth Circuit reviews only for plain error, and affirms Santiago's 25-year sentence.

Sorry, Santiago. Hopefully next time -- when you're 60 or so -- your lawyer will have gotten more sleep the night before.

There's always an ineffectiveness claim on habeas. Good luck with that.

http://calapp.blogspot.com/

Shaun Martin is often funny as hell and he explains the law in a way many of us lay people can understand. There is a case or two on his blog that will break your heart, but he gives us fair warning. Frankly, I can't get through those.