What are my grounds for appeal?

It's not unusual for a recently sentenced defendant and his or her loved ones to ask what types of claims may be raised on appeal. This is an important question. To understand the path ahead, it is worth understanding what an appeal is and what it is not.

Generally, an appeal is a request for a higher court to review the decisions of a lower court. Were the trial court’s rulings on objections correct? Was the exclusion or admission of evidence correct? For purposes of a defendant freshly sentenced and seeking review, an appeal is best viewed as a direct appeal to a higher court.

A common question is whether ineffective assistance of counsel can be raised on direct appeal. Many clients are rightfully angry about the performance of their lawyer at trial and naturally believe an appeal should be an opportunity to discuss their attorney’s ineffectiveness. However, the law is complicated and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction on whether ineffective assistance of counsel claims can be raised on direct appeal. In federal court, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must usually be brought in a 2255 postconviction petition. [1] The only way an ineffective assistance of counsel claim may be brought on direct appeal is if the trial court developed the record. [2] The reason for this is because most claims involve questions of whether a lawyer’s action or inaction was reasonable or strategic. [3]

In Alabama, ineffective assistance of counsel claims cannot be raised on direct appeal unless the claim has first been presented to the trial court. [4] This requires first presenting the claim in a timely motion for new trial. [5]

In Minnesota, things are a little different because of the “Knaffla Rule.” This rule provides that “where direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.” [6] What this means is that any ineffective assistance of counsel claims which can be resolved on the face of the record must be raised. [7] Conversely, where the claim requires additional fact-finding (such as inquiring into matters of counsel strategy), the claim is not barred. [8]

Direct appeal claims must also be “preserved.” The concept of preservation means the trial court must be given the first opportunity to correct an error before an appellate court can decide the issue. The reason for this is based in fairness and efficiency: If all that was required for reversal was an objection at any time, it would encourage parties to sit on errors and raise them only in the event of a negative verdict. The administration of justice and the court system could not function properly if parties were encouraged to sit silently when errors happened.

Accordingly, most issues are subject to the “contemporaneous objection rule,” which means that an objection must be made when the error happens which alerts the court to the grounds for the objection. [9] If the attorney fails to object at the time or the objection is not sufficiently specific, the error may be unpreserved and thus only reviewable for plain error. [10] Plain error is a heightened standard which requires that the appellant show:

(1) an error,

(2) that is plain,

(3) which affects substantial rights, and

(4) but for the error, there is a reasonable probability that the results of the proceeding would have been different. [11]

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that meeting the prongs of plain error “is difficult.” [12] Thus, preservation is a critical part of an appeal.

Where the issue is properly preserved, the type of claim depends on the nature of the underlying facts. For example, pure issues of law are reviewed “de novo,” which the appellate court is considering the legal question “anew,” “from the beginning,” or “afresh.” [13] Issues such as the legality of a sentence, [14], jurisdiction, [15], or certain constitutional issues are reviewed de novo. [16] The admission or exclusion of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. [17] This means the trial court could have decided the issue one way or the other but the court abused its discretion by making the wrong decision. Certain factual questions may be reviewed for the presence or absence of substantial evidence supporting the finding.

All in all, an appeal is a complicated proceeding. My practice is dedicated to criminal appeals, postconviction relief, and upholding civil rights. If you or someone you love needs help with an appeal, contact Peter Armstrong, Attorney at Law, for a free consultation.

REFERENCES:

1.    Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-05 (2003). (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/538/500/)

2.    United States v. Patterson, 595 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2010). (https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/591464efadd7b04934282553)

3.    United States v. Andrews, 953 F.2d 1312, 1327 (11th Cir. 1992). (https://www.leagle.com/decision/19922265953f2d131212066)

4.    Montgomery v. State, 781 So. 2d 1007, 1010 (Ala. 2000). (https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/montgomery-v-state-885801562)

5.    Id. (quoting Ex parte Ingram, 675 So. 2d 863, 865-66 (Ala. 1996)). (https://law.justia.com/cases/alabama/supreme-court/1996/1950060-1.html)

6.    State v. Knaffla, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (Minn. 1976). (https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/1976/46111-1.html)

7.    Sontoya v. State, 829 N.W.2d 602, 604 (Minn. 2013). (https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914f11aadd7b04934979574)

8.    Sanchez-Diaz v. State, 758 N.W.2d 843, 847 (Minn. 2008). (https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/591468a0add7b049342c8648)

9.    Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/556/129/)

10. Id.; Ex parte Traywick, 698 So. 2d 162, 167 (Ala. 1997) (https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/ex-parte-trawick-894197082); State v. Griller, 583 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn. 1998). (https://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/state-v-griller-583-n-w-2d-736-mn-supreme-court-1998/)

11.  Greer v. United States, 593 U.S. 503, 507-08 (2021). (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/593/19-8709/)

12. Id. at 508.

13. See “de novo” defined at https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/de_novo.

14. Williams v. State, 203 So. 3d 888, 893 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015).

15. State v. Pflepsen, 590 N.W.2d 759, 763 (Minn. 1999). (https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914bb30add7b049347952cf)

16. United States v. Shamsid-Deen, 61 F.4th 935, 945 (11th Cir. 2023). (https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/united-states-v-shamsid-942907630)

17. Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 191 (1997). (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/519/172/)