Finally, Frink contends that counsel in the first postconviction proceeding failed to press the issues of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Frink claimed that his appellate counsel was delinquent in not asserting that Frink has been denied effective assistance of counsel in the trial court and that that court had abused its discretion. He argued that his trial counsel failed to: (1) present mitigating evidence at sentencing (2) request the court to state its reasons for giving him consecutive rather than concurrent sentences (3) challenge the court's application of ยง 902.7 and (4) properly advise him of his right to appeal the sentence on the ground that the court abused its discretion. ![]() Procedural facts: what the administrative law judge ruled, what (in a. ![]() Frink filed the present petition for federal habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, contending that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel in the various state court proceedings, in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. discussion of hearing procedure in welfare cases (applicable in part to other. DD Frink, RJ Klimoski, Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |