State v. Nichols, Docket No. K
| Decision Date | 05 August 1997 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. K |
| Citation | 698 A.2d 521,1997 ME 178 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Thomas L. NICHOLS. no-96-597. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Geoffrey Rushlau, District Attorney, Rockland, for State.
Anne H. Jordan, Jensen Baird Gadner & Henry, Biddeford, Craig A. Cellitti, Boston, MA, for defendant.
Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, RUDMAN, and LIPEZ, JJ.
¶1 Thomas L. Nichols appeals from the judgments of conviction entered in the Superior Court (Knox County, Kravchuk, J.) on jury verdicts finding him guilty of the possession of a schedule W drug (Class B), 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1107 (Supp.1996); aggravated trafficking in a schedule W drug (Class A), 17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 1103 & 1105 (1983 & Supp.1996); and conspiracy to traffick in a schedule W drug (Class C), 17-A M.R.S.A. §§ 151, 1103 (1983 & Supp.1996). Nichols argues that he was deprived of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel and that we should consider his contention on direct appeal. We decline to do so.
¶2 In June 1994 Nichols was a passenger in a vehicle driven by James Pike that was stopped for a traffic violation. Nichols and Pike were arrested after a search of the vehicle revealed a package containing 580 grams of cocaine. After a trial in August 1996 Nichols was convicted of the possession of cocaine, aggravated trafficking in cocaine, and conspiracy to traffick in cocaine. Nichols presents several arguments as to why his representation at trial was constitutionally defective. He contends that his counsel failed to object to various inadmissible and highly damaging evidence submitted by the State and failed to withdraw from representation as soon as he discovered that one of the prosecution's key witnesses was his former client.
¶3 In State v. Pullen, 266 A.2d 222, 230-31 (Me.1970), we held that a defendant could not raise on direct appeal a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We were concerned about the need to develop an adequate evidentiary record by which to judge trial counsel's performance, and we concluded it would best be done by a post-conviction review proceeding. "The determination would then be made upon a proper evidentiary hearing, with full findings and record, at which both the appellant and his trial counsel would be afforded opportunity to be heard." Id. at 231. Our decision in Pullen, however, reserved the possibility that a claim of the ineffective assistance of counsel could be raised on direct appeal if "it clearly appeared that ineptness of counsel had resulted in a denial to the appellant of his constitutional right of adequate counsel." Id. We subsequently refined this statement to provide that ineffective assistance claims could only be brought on direct appeal if "the appeal record, within its own confines, establishes beyond possibility of rational disagreement the existence of representational deficiencies ... which are plainly beyond rational explanation or justification." State v. LeBlanc, 290 A.2d 193, 202 (Me.1972). To...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Treptow
...performance; ... and (4) constitutes a significant drain on [appellate court] resources in responding to such claims. State v. Nichols , 698 A.2d 521, 522 (Me. 1997), holding modified by Petgrave v. State , 208 A.3d 371 (Me. 2019). There is no due process right to present claims of ineffect......
-
State v. Tucker
...performance; ... and (4) constitutes a significant drain on [appellate court] resources in responding to such claims. State v. Nichols , 698 A.2d 521, 522 (Me. 1997), holding modified by Petgrave v. State , 208 A.3d 371 (Me. 2019).D.We hold sections 814.6(1)(a )(3) and 814.7, whether consid......
-
Standring v. U.S.
...“not consider an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal.” Standring, 2008 ME 188, ¶ 2, 960 A.2d at 1211 (citing State v. Nichols, 1997 ME 178, ¶ 4, 698 A.2d 521, 522.). In due course, Standring made this claim in his amended petition for post-conviction review: GROUND TWO:......
-
Payzant v. Barnhart
...be raised on either direct appeal (which includes a discretionary appeal of sentence) and must await postconviction review. State v. Nichols, 1997 ME 178, ¶ 4, 698 A.2d 521, 522 (“Today we make clear that we will not consider a claim of the ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal......