People v. Yankaway

This case presents question as to whether defendant established viable ineffective assistance of counsel claim, where defendant alleged that counsel filed speedy trial demand under wrong statute and failed to object to four requests for continuances of trial that delayed his trial beyond actual statutory time frame. Appellate Court found that although counsel’s performance fell below reasonably competent standard of representation because he should have known correct statute that governed defendant’s speedy trial right, defendant did not establish any prejudice in counsel’s actions, because record did not support conclusion that if counsel had filed speedy trial demand under proper statute, the result of trial court’s proceedings would have been different but for counsel’s error in filing wrong speedy trial demand. Defendant also argued in his petition for leave to appeal that: (1) trial court erred during sentencing by referring to wrong and higher minimum sentence when sentencing on defendant’s attempted murder conviction; and (2) Appellate Court erred in remanding for sentencing his conviction on unlawful use of weapon, where trial court failed to originally sentence him on said charge due to prosecutor’s invitation to not sentence him on said charge.