Gish v. Hepp

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his murder conviction on ground that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to fully investigate involuntary intoxication defense arising out of his alleged taking of Xanax and Lamictal where, according to defendant: (1) his taking of said drugs triggered his delusional state of mind that caused him to kill victim; and (2) said failure to investigate involuntary intoxication defense caused him to plead guilty to murder charge and receive 40-year sentence instead of possible mandatory life sentence. Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant failed to establish any prejudice arising out of his trial counsel’s failure to pursue involuntary intoxication defense, where: (1) defendant’s Xanax-based intoxication defense had no reasonable prospect of success at trial, especially where defendant had previously stated that he last took Xanax two days prior to murder; (2) it was unlikely that defendant would have proceeded to trial based on said defense and run risk of conviction and mandatory life sentence, as opposed to 40-year sentence he received as result of his guilty plea; and (3) defendant testified to focusing on presenting defense with chance of success.