See infra at 17-18. 11 . See McIntosh, 395 A.2d at 750 n. 12 (noting that in 1976, Congress amended the predecessor of Section 1-206.02(a)(9) to "extend [that] section’s time prohibition” from two years to four years). 12 . For other such cases, see. Dimond v. District of Columbia, 253 U.S.App. D.C. 11), 121-22, 792 F.2d 179, 189-90 (1986) (upholding District of Columbia Compulsory/No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act of 1982, which defined Superior Court's "jurisdiction in automobile accident tort cases to extend only to cases where $5,000 in medical expenses have been incurred,” against argument that this act violated the HRA's restriction on Council legislation relating to the organization and jurisdiction of the District of Columbia Courts); Ilessey v. Burden, 584 A.2d 1 (D.C.1990) (<HOLDING>); District of Columbia v. Greater Wash. Cent.
holding that to prove ineffectiveness where defendant rejected plea offer upon advice of counsel defendant must show he would have accepted the offer had counsel advised correctly the state would not have withdrawn its offer the court would have accepted the offer and the resulting sentence would have been less severe holding that the failure to interview and present alibi witnesses who would have supported the defendants version of events was prejudicial holding that the elevated class c felony penalty for the offense of criminal recklessness by shooting a firearm from a vehicle into a place where people are likely to gather did not shock public sentiment or violate the judgment of reasonable people because among other things the use of a vehicle would make it less likely that the person would be identified which in turn would make it more likely that the offense would be committed holding that initiative that would have enlarged the class of persons who would bring appeals to the tax division of the superior court would not violate the predecessor version of section 120602a4 holding that the court need not follow a decision of the district of columbia court of appeals where  it appears that the  court of appeals itself would not follow that decision