Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Habeas Corpus — ineffective assistance

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//November 10, 2011//

Habeas Corpus — ineffective assistance

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//November 10, 2011//

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals

Criminal

Habeas Corpus — ineffective assistance

Even if a state defendant’s attorney erroneously stated the maximum penalty, the defendant was not prejudiced where the trial judge correctly informed him of the maximum sentence.

“We assume, as the parties have done, that Payne’s lawyer told him that the maximum sentence could not exceed 20 years, and not just that he would try to persuade the judge that this was the limit. Attorneys often are more confident of their position than the law warrants; perhaps Payne’s lawyer failed to alert his client to the risk that his argument would be rejected. (It was a weak argument; counsel apparently got the rules for lesser included offenses backward and assumed that the greater offense merges into the lesser.) But though Payne received bad advice from his lawyer, he received the correct information from the judge. He could have backed out when he heard the unwelcome news—the lawyers, jury, and witnesses were ready to proceed with trial—but he didn’t.”

Affirmed.

10-1869 Payne v. Brown

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Young, J., Easterbrook, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests