How is ineffective assistance of counsel raised in Georgia criminal defense?
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel asserts that a lawyer’s representation was so deficient that it violated the defendant’s constitutional right to effective counsel, and Georgia courts analyze such claims under a established two-part standard. This claim is a recognized basis for challenging a conviction.
The governing standard comes from Strickland v. Washington. To prevail, a person generally must satisfy two prongs: that counsel’s performance was deficient, meaning it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Both prongs must be established.
For this reason, the deficiency prong examines counsel’s performance. This involves showing that an attorney’s actions were objectively unreasonable rather than a matter of reasonable strategy, since courts generally afford latitude to legitimate tactical decisions. A disagreement with strategy alone does not establish deficiency.
The prejudice prong examines the effect. A person generally must show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. This connects the alleged deficiency to a concrete effect on the result.
Raising an ineffective assistance claim requires addressing both the adequacy of counsel’s performance and the effect of any deficiency on the outcome. Because both prongs of the Strickland standard must be met, a claim can fail even where an attorney clearly erred, if the error did not affect the result, and it can equally fail where an outcome was poor but counsel’s choices were reasonable. That dual requirement is what makes these claims difficult to establish.