See Sexton v. State, 529 So.2d 1041, 1049 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988); State v. Moran, 151 Ariz. 378, 382, 728 P.2d 248, 252 (1986); People v. Bledsoe, 36 Cal.3d 236, 203 Cal.Rptr. 450, 460-61, 681 P.2d 291, 301 (1984) (in bank); People v. Fasy, 829 P.2d 1314, 1317 (Colo. 1992); Wheat v. State, 527 A.2d 269, 274 (Del. 1987); State v. Batangan, 71 Haw. 552, 799 P.2d 48, 52 (1990); State v. Roles, 122 Idaho 138, 146, 832 P.2d 311, 319 (Ct.App. 1992); State v. Gettier, 438 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 1989); Commonwealth v. Mamay, 407 Mass. 412, 553 N.E.2d 945, 951 (1990); People v. Beckley, 434 Mich. 691, 456 N.W.2d 391, 399 (1990); People v. Taylor, 75 N.Y.2d 277, 552 N.Y.S.2d 883, 890, 552 N.E.2d 131, 138 (1990); Smith v. State, 100 Nev. 570, 688 P.2d 326, 327 (1984); State v. Hall, 330 N.C. 808, 412 S.E.2d 883, 890 (1992); State v. Bachman, 446 N.W.2d 271, 277 (S.D. 1989); State v. Catsam, 148 Vt. 366, 534 A.2d 184, 187 (1987); State v. Robinson, 146 Wis.2d 315, 431 N.W.2d 165, 172 (1988); Lessard v. State, 719 P.2d 227, 234 (Wyo. 1986). As to the issue of whether such evidence is admissible to prove sexual abuse or nonconsensual intercourse, the courts are about evenly split.
In March 1990, a jury found Roles guilty of rape, first degree kidnapping, aggravated assault, and forcible sexual penetration with a foreign object. State v. Roles, 122 Idaho 138, 139, 832 P.2d 311, 312 (Ct. App. 1992). The district court sentenced Roles to a unified term of life, with fifteen years determinate, for each of the crimes of rape, kidnapping, and forcible sexual penetration with a foreign object, and a determinate, five-year sentence for aggravated assault, with the sentences to run concurrently.
However, this Court has recognized that "counsel has broad discretion when formulating strategy and tactics prior to and during trial." State v. Roles, 122 Idaho 138, 148, 832 P.2d 311, 321 (Ct.App.1992). Thus, we will not second-guess trial counsel's decisions absent evidence of "inadequate preparation, ignorance of the relevant law, or other shortcomings capable of objective evaluation."
However, this Court has recognized that "counsel has broad discretion when formulating strategy and tactics prior to and during trial." State v. Roles, 122 Idaho 138, 148, 832 P.2d 311, 321 (Ct. App. 1992). Thus, we will not second-guess trial counsel's decisions absent evidence of "inadequate preparation, ignorance of the relevant law, or other shortcomings capable of objective evaluation."
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the appellant must show that counsel's representation was deficient and that the deficiency was prejudicial. State v. Roles, 122 Idaho 138, 144, 832 P.2d 311, 317 (Ct.App. 1992), citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The appellant must show that the performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
This argument is without merit. A similar contention was presented in State v. Roles, 122 Idaho 138, 832 P.2d 311 (Ct.App. 1992). In that case, the State charged that the defendant had used certain objects to forcibly penetrate the victim during the course of a rape.
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a claimant must show both that the attorney's performance in the criminal proceedings was deficient and that the deficiency in performance was prejudicial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Roles, 122 Idaho 138, 144, 832 P.2d 311, 317 (Ct.App. 1992). In order to show that counsel's performance was deficient, the claimant must demonstrate that the attorney's conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the applicant must show that counsel's representation was deficient and that the deficiency was prejudicial. State v. Roles, 122 Idaho 138, 144, 832 P.2d 311, 317 (Ct.App. 1992), citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). To establish a deficiency, the applicant has the burden of showing that the attorney's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
In order to establish that the deficiency prejudiced the case, a "defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the preceeding would have been different." State v. Roles, 122 Idaho 138, 145, 832 P.2d 311, 318 (Ct.App. 1992) quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 1. Double jeopardy claim
The facts underlying Petitioner's conviction are set forth clearly and accurately in Roles v. State, 832 P.2d 311 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992). The facts will not be repeated here except as necessary to explain the Court's decision.