How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask LegalKnowledge Your Own Question
LegalKnowledge
LegalKnowledge, Attorney
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 24885
Experience:  10+ years handling Legal, Real Estate, Criminal Law, Family Law, Traffic matters.
9540344
Type Your Legal Question Here...
LegalKnowledge is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

An attorney failed to understand the mental capacity of s

Customer Question

An attorney failed to understand the mental capacity of his client who was used by a drug dealer to make deliveries for a high. Is this a case for ineffective legal representation?. the person has the mentality of a third- grader, but is 30 years old. He is also being confined with regular inmates. What can be done to correct these errors Thank you for your guidance. The attorney was a Public Defender.
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Legal
Expert:  LegalKnowledge replied 1 year ago.

Good morning. I certainly understand the situation and your concern. Relief could be obtained BUT there are things which he would need to show/prove. The finding of ineffective assistance of counsel following a conviction at trial turns on a showing of two components. “First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” The test for prejudice is “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome [of the trial].”
When the defendant enters a guilty or nolo contendere plea, rather than proceeding to trial, the two-part test above still applies; however, the prejudice prong “focuses on whether counsel’s constitutionally ineffective performance affected the outcome of the plea process.” Specifically, “in order to satisfy the ‘prejudice’ requirement, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.”

In determining whether a reasonable probability exists that the defendant would have insisted on going to trial, a court should consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the plea, including such factors as whether a particular defense was likely to succeed at trial, the colloquy between the defendant and the trial court at the time of the plea, and the difference between the sentence imposed under the plea and the maximum possible sentence the defendant faced at a trial.

If this is present, then there would be grounds for a claim. As far as the issue within the jail, they should have evaluated him when it was first in and determined his classification and where and how he should be housed.

Expert:  LegalKnowledge replied 1 year ago.

Please let me know if you have any follow up questions or need any clarification on something which I stated above. Also, remember to rate my service at the top of this page, before exiting the site, so I can receive credit for my help. I hope you found it to be Excellent! Only rate my answer when you are 100% satisfied. If you feel the need to click either of the two lower ratings to the left, please stop and reply to me. I want to make sure your experience with the site was as pleasurable as possible and that you are satisfied with the help I provided.

Related Legal Questions