Ineffective Assitance of Counsel Ruling by Supreme Court could pave the way to relief for Alexander
This is a huge ruling, especially considering Alexander was afforded no plea bargain whatsoever. That information coupled with the fact that Alexander’s attorney didn’t even bother to secure concurrent or at least partial concurrent sentencing considering the grave consequences makes this, in my opinion, an open and shut case of ineffective assistance of counsel which is what this new ruling addresses:
The Court: Where, under state law, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding, a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing a substantial claim of ineffective assistance at trial if, in the initial-review collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective.
Defense Attorney Bill Jones, considered to be the best criminal defense attorney in haywood county, could surely have done a better job at representing my son considering the severity of the charges. He did not. Neither did Alexander’s probation revocation attorney Pam Smith, who proved less effective than Jones at doing her job and even downright biased against Alex’s best interest. (as always, digital court transcripts are available upon request)
The attorney I spoke to in Charlotte a few months ago, Charles Oldham, told me that he would pursue Alexander’s case in federal court via habeas corpus. In the above quote please notice the passage “a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing a substantial claim of ineffective assistance at trial.” That means that no matter what, if Alexander and/or his attorney were to bring about the charge of ineffective assistance of counsel, which is obvious, the court would be required by law to hear the case and rule upon it’s merits.