PCR Exhibits - Alaska State of Corruption

State v. Johnson, 837 A.2d 1131 (N.J. 2003) Counsel ineffective for failing to move to suppress
a handgun seized from the defendant.
Richards v. Quarterman, 578 F. Supp. 2d 849, 855 (5 th Cir.2009) Counsel was ineffective for a
number of reasons. Counsel’s conduct was deficient in failing to present evidence and preventing
the state from presenting evidence. Counsels alleged strategy for this failure was “gibberish” and
“an after-the-fact justification for her failure to perform properly as an attorney.” “The
cumulative effect of [counsel’s] deficiencies in the representation…amounted to ineffective
assistance of counsel that permeated [the] entire trial.”
Rayshad v. State, 670 S.E.2d 849 (GA 2008) Counsel ineffective for failing to object to
inadmissible, prejudicial evidence.
People v. Tykhonov, 838 N.YS.2d (N.Y. 2007) Counsel ineffective for numerous reasons.
Counsel failed to file a motion to suppress. Counsel also “was not prepared in both the law and
the facts and he was unable to employ basic principles of criminal law and procedure.”
Failure to Enforce Plea Agreement
Baldridge v. Weber, 746 N.W.2d 12 (S.D. 2008) Counsel ineffective for failing to object to the
state’s failure to comply with the plea agreement. Prejudice was presumed because the defendant
“had a substantial right to the fulfillment of the terms of his plea agreement.”
Custodio v. State, 644 S.E.2d 36 (S.C. 2007) Counsel ineffective for failing to have the
defendants plea agreement enforced based on detrimental reliance. Prejudice established because
the defendant was entitled to enforcement of the deal. “[T]he State may withdraw a plea bargain
offer before a defendant pleads guilty, provided the defendant has not detrimentally relied on the
offer.” Here, the defendant had detrimentally relied on the offer.
Taylor v. State, 919 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 2006) Counsel ineffective for failing to ensure enforcement
of the plea agreement.
Failure to Give Adequate Advice
Thompson v. United States, 504 F.3d 1203 (11 th Cir. 2007) Counsel ineffective for failing to
adequately advise the defendant of the right to appeal. Counsel had duty to consult with the
defendant because the defendant “expressed and interest in an appeal by asking his attorney
about that right.” Counsel’s advice was deficient because the defendant was given no
information from which he could have intelligently and knowingly either asserted or waived his
right to appeal. Prejudice established because there is a reasonable probability the defendant
would have appealed if he had been adequately advised.
303