Schmuhl v. Clarke

Syllabus

12/14/2023 In this appeal from denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which it was claimed that trial counsel were ineffective due to an alleged misunderstanding of the law regarding the admissibility of mental state evidence which resulted in petitioner's inability to present crucial expert testimony regarding his sanity at the time that he committed his crimes, it is apparent that, taken as a whole, trial counsel's actions in this case amounted to an unsuccessful attempt to extend the existing law to their client's benefit. The record clearly establishes that trial counsel made a thorough investigation of the law and facts and chose a course of action that they believed had the best chance of success. This is precisely the type of representation that is expected from competent attorneys. Accordingly, it cannot be said that trial counsel's performance was deficient. The decision of the habeas court denying the petition for such relief is affirmed.