State v Hare

Hare appealed his drug trafficking convictions arguing improper acceptance of his jury trial waiver and ineffective assistance f counsel. The panela affirmed. It held that Hare failed to demonstrate any prejudice form his jury trail waiver and thus had no claim. It also held that Hare’s attorney was physically present and participated in the waiver colloquy and thus Hare could not prove total abandonment by counsel. It held any error in setting the trial date more than 30 days out was invited as Hare said the date was fine. The panel rejected the ineffective assistance arguments holding Hare failed to demonstrate prejudice from the failure of his attorney to listen to tapes of the controlled buy or to explain his jury trial right and there was a sound tactical reason to not pursue immaterial inconsistencies in a witnesse’s testimony.

Needham v State

Needham appealed the dismissal of his case for failure to serve defendants. The panel affirmed holding that Needham failed to provide summons to the sheriff and failed to prove this was excusable neglect.