Ineffective assistance of counsel; Advice not to testify; Trial strategy; Prejudice

Holding that defense counsel’s advice against defendant testifying was sound trial strategy and did not prejudice defendant, the court rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. He was convicted of meth possession. In light of the record, the court concluded that “defense counsel had a legitimate strategic reason to advise defendant of the risks of testifying. Most critically, defendant would have been subjected to the prosecutor’s cross-examination if he had testified on his own behalf. This cross-examination reasonably could have elicited more prejudicial evidence against” him, such as his past meth use. Given “defense counsel’s other arguments (the discernibility of the residue and defendant’s cooperation with the search indicating a lack of knowledge” about the meth), “defense counsel was able to advance a defense for defendant without his testimony.” Further, as to prejudice, in light of the evidence against him, defendant could not show “a reasonable probability of a better outcome had defense counsel not advised him to refrain from testifying.” The court added that “it was defendant’s decision on whether he testified or not, as shown by the trial court’s extensive conversation with” him about the possibility of doing so.