Military appellate courts apply the two-pronged Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel claims, requiring proof of both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. The performance prong examines whether counsel’s actions fell below objective standards of reasonableness considering prevailing professional norms. Courts presume counsel competence, requiring appellants to overcome strong presumptions that challenged actions represented reasonable strategic decisions. The prejudice prong requires showing reasonable probability of different results absent counsel’s errors.
Common ineffective assistance claims include failure to investigate witnesses, inadequate cross-examination, not raising meritorious motions, or deficient advice during plea negotiations. Military-specific claims involve failures regarding unlawful command influence, Article 32 hearings, or panel member challenges. Appellate courts generally prefer developing ineffective assistance claims through post-trial hearings rather than direct appeal, as trial records rarely capture counsel’s strategic reasoning.
The remedy for proven ineffective assistance varies based on the error’s impact. Options include ordering new trials, sentence rehearings, or modifying findings to lesser included offenses. Cumulative errors not individually prejudicial may collectively warrant relief. Military appellate practice uniquely allows raising ineffective assistance on direct appeal through declarations from trial participants. Courts apply Strickland strictly, recognizing that aggressive representation sometimes involves failed strategies. The focus remains on whether counsel’s performance deprived the accused of fundamentally fair proceedings, not whether perfect representation occurred.