Criminal Procedure — right to counsel — ineffective assistance

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — right to counsel — ineffective assistance

It did not violate a defendant’s right to counsel, when his attorney refused to move for a new trial.

“Yes, Westmoreland had a right to counsel, but Westmoreland had counsel. He asked his counsel to represent him in his pursuit of a new trial, but his counsel refused. It is well established that a defendant’s right to counsel does not give him a right to force his counsel to make every possible nonfrivolous argument that could be made on his behalf. See Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983) (‘Neither Anders [v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)] nor any other decision of this Court suggests . . . a constitutional right to compel appointed counsel to press nonfrivolous points requested by the client, if counsel, as a matter of professional judgment, decides not to present those points.’).”

Affirmed.

10-3961 U.S. v. Westmoreland

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Stiehl, J., Hamilton, J.