Saffold v. State

11 Citing cases

  1. Steele v. Patterson

    CA 11-0044-KD-C (S.D. Ala. Aug. 24, 2011)

    The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has concluded that "effective representation does not entitle the Petitioner to [an] error-free trial, and [a] showing that counsel made a mistake unfavorable to defendant is not sufficient to establish inadequate representation." Saffold v. State, 570 So.2d 727, 731 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990). The Alabama Supreme Court has delineated a two-prong test based on Strickland v. Washington, 446 U.S. 668 (1984), to determine whether counsel was ineffective.

  2. Besselaar v. Hooks

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-00859-BH-B (S.D. Ala. Aug. 7, 2007)

    A defendant is not entitled to an error-free trial, and the fact that counsel made a mistake is not enough to show that his performance was ineffective. See Saffold v. State, 570 So. 2d 727 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990). In any event, this Court has held that "`[d]uring closing argument, the prosecutor, as well as defense counsel, has a right to present his impressions from the evidence, if reasonable, and may argue every legitimate inference.'"

  3. Green v. State

    15 So. 3d 489 (Ala. 2008)   Cited 15 times
    In Green, the Court determined such a circumstance did not exist because the officer testified that he did not recall telling the issuing judge anything other than what was stated in the affidavit itself.

    Effective representation does not entitle a defendant to error-free representation. Saffold v. State, 570 So.2d 727, 731 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990). "In any case presenting an ineffectiveness claim, the performance inquiry must be whether counsel's assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances."

  4. Johnson v. State

    379 So. 3d 994 (Ala. Crim. App. 2022)

    Additionally, this Court would point out that ‘effective representation does not entitle the defendant to an error-free trial, and showing that counsel made a mistake unfavorable to the defendant is not sufficient to establish inadequate representation.’ Saffold v. State, 570 So.2d 727, 731 (Ala. Crim.App.1990). "Johnson has not met his burden of proof in showing that his attorneys were ineffective."

  5. Johnson v. State

    No. CR-05-1805 (Ala. Crim. App. Jun. 14, 2013)

    Additionally, this Court would point out that 'effective representation does not entitle the defendant to an error-free trial, and showing that counsel made a mistake unfavorable to the defendant is not sufficient to establish inadequate representation.' Saffold v. State, 570 So. 2d 727, 731 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990).

  6. Whitson v. State

    109 So. 3d 665 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that a petitioner failed to meet his burden of overcoming the presumption that counsel were effective because the petitioner failed to question appellate counsel regarding their reasoning

    Parker, 510 So.2d at 286. See also Saffold v. State, 570 So.2d 727 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). In discussing the presumption that trial counsel was competent in its representation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has noted:

  7. Whitson v. State

    No. CR-11-0887 (Ala. Crim. App. Aug. 24, 2012)

    Parker, 510 So. 2d at 286. See also Saffold v. State, 570 So. 2d 727 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990). In discussing the presumption that trial counsel was competent in its representation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has noted:

  8. Russo v. State

    630 So. 2d 142 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)   Cited 6 times

    unsel's failure either to request or to object to jury instructions, even if that failure is determined to be error, will not always constitute reversible error. See Cosby v. State, 627 So.2d 1057 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992) (cause remanded for hearing on claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel based upon trial counsel's failure to object to allegedly improper jury instructions given by the trial court at the conclusion of the guilt and of penalty phases of the capital trial); Johnson v. State, 612 So.2d 1288, 1298 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992) (even if failure to request a felony murder instruction constitutes ineffective assistance, defendant failed to establish the prejudice component required by Strickland); Hubbard v. State, 584 So.2d 895, 913 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 896, 116 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992) ("[e]ven if the trial judge's instruction was improper, given the evidence at trial, petitioner's counsel were not ineffective in not challenging this instruction"); Saffold v. State, 570 So.2d 727, 732 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990) (failure to request an instruction on the lesser included offense of criminal negligence did not render counsel's performance ineffective); Harrell v. State, 526 So.2d 646, 652 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 934, 109 S.Ct. 329, 102 L.Ed.2d 347 (1988) (failure to request a jury instruction as to knowledge that the victim was a police officer did not constitute ineffective assistance); Parker v. State, 510 So.2d 281, 286-88 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987) (failure to request instructions on the lesser included offenses of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide was a tactical choice and did not constitute ineffective assistance). By no flight of the imagination can we conclude under the facts of this case that had the trial court given every instruction requested by the appellant, the jury would have found him not guilty.

  9. Cosby v. State

    627 So. 2d 1059 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)   Cited 9 times

    However, a defendant is not entitled to an error-free trial, and the mere fact that trial counsel made a mistake is not enough to show that his performance was ineffective. Saffold v. State, 570 So.2d 727 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990). Also, as the State points out in its brief, the trial judge correctly instructed the jury as to the burden of proof 17 times and he correctly referred to the possible penalty as being life without parole 26 different times.

  10. Woodberry v. State

    625 So. 2d 1159 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993)

    An attorney's decision not to raise a particular argument regarding the evidence is not an indication that the attorney's performance fell below an acceptable professional standard. Falkner v. State, 586 So.2d 39 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991); Saffold v. State, 570 So.2d 727 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990). In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the United States Supreme Court set forth