Did the trial court abuse its discretion in finding ineffective assistance of counsel?
The trial court found ineffective assistance of counsel. In reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we apply a two-prong test. See Ex parte Lemke, 13 S.W.3d 791, 795 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Wolf had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence in the court below that (1) Devlin=s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) Devlin=s deficient performance resulted in prejudice to the defense. See id. When evaluating a claim of ineffective assistance, the appellate court looks to the totality of the representation and the particular circumstances of each case. See Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The reviewing court indulges a strong presumption that (1) counsel=s actions and decisions were reasonably professional and were motivated by sound trial strategy, and (2) that counsel=s conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. See id. To overco
Related Questions
- Did the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Smith to introduce evidence that Jurgensen received financial benefits from collateral sources?
- Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it denied Letchers motion for a continuance?
- Did the trial court abuse its discretion in finding ineffective assistance of counsel?
