In this third installment of a five-part series, Oklahoma City Attorney Aaron Easton delves into the concept of ineffective assistance of counsel and its impact on a petitioner’s right to seek post-conviction relief. Easton explains that every citizen, including Oklahomans, is entitled to receive effective legal representation under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He then focuses on the first prong of the two-pronged test established by the Supreme Court case Strickland v. Washington. This prong requires proving that the defense attorney’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Easton emphasizes the importance of adhering to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ interpretation and application of the state’s rules of professional conduct. If you believe you were convicted due to ineffective counsel, Easton recommends seeking a private consultation with an attorney to determine your eligibility for post-conviction relief.
Strickland’s Second Prong: Unraveling Prejudice in Post-Conviction Battles
In this fourth part of a five-part series, Oklahoma City Attorney Aaron Easton delves into the second prong of Strickland’s test for post-conviction relief. After discussing the first prong in the previous video, Easton emphasizes the significance of meeting this initial requirement before moving on to the second prong. He explains that the petitioner must demonstrate not only the attorney’s deficient performance but also the resulting prejudice they experienced as a direct consequence. Drawing on the U.S. Supreme Court’s elucidation, Easton highlights the need to establish a clear link between the ineffective counsel and the detrimental impact on the outcome of the proceedings. Interested individuals can contact Easton’s firm for a initial consultation on their specific case.
Strickland Test: Your Route to Post-Conviction Hope
In part two of his five-part series, Oklahoma City Attorney Aaron Easton explores the Strickland Test and its role in post-conviction relief for criminal defendants in Oklahoma. The landmark United States Supreme Court case of Strickland v. Washington established a two-part test that determines whether a petitioner is eligible for relief. The first prong requires the petitioner to demonstrate that their counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The second prong necessitates showing that they suffered prejudice due to their counsel’s deficient performance. Easton promises to delve deeper into the specifics of these prongs in future videos. If you believe you may be a good candidate for post-conviction relief, Easton offers a initial consultation at his firm.
Have You Received Inadequate Representation in Oklahoma?
Are you one of the many individuals who received inadequate representation at your trial in Oklahoma? If you’re questioning the outcome of your conviction and wondering if there’s any recourse, Attorney Aaron Easton has answers for you. In this five-part series, he explores the topic of ineffective assistance of counsel, which primarily concerns trial counsel but also includes appellate counsel. Fortunately, there is potential for recourse under the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Act statutes. By appealing to the district court where you were sentenced, you can seek post-conviction relief, such as overturning your case or obtaining a new trial. Reach out to Aaron Easton’s firm for a initial consultation to discuss your options.
Can I Withdraw My Guilty Plea from a Previous Conviction in Oklahoma?
Are you wondering if you can withdraw a guilty plea from a previous conviction in Oklahoma? Attorney Aaron Easton from Oklahoma City addresses this question in his latest blog post. He explains that the United States Supreme Court recognizes your constitutional right to withdraw a plea if it wasn’t both knowing and voluntary. However, there is a legal definition for knowing and voluntary that may differ from our common understanding. Easton discusses a two-pronged test established by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to determine when you might be able to withdraw your plea. If you believe your plea was not knowing and voluntary, it is crucial to consult an attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Material Evidence vs. Post-Conviction Relief in Oklahoma
In this blog post, Oklahoma City Attorney Aaron Easton delves into the concept of material evidence in the context of post-conviction relief in Oklahoma. He discusses the definition of material evidence and its importance in determining whether a person convicted of a crime is eligible for relief based on newly discovered evidence. Easton explains that material evidence is evidence that, if utilized by the defense, could have potentially changed the outcome of the trial. He also highlights the holistic approach taken by the court in assessing the impact of newly discovered evidence, considering both old and new evidence as a whole. If you find yourself in a situation where you believe you have newly discovered evidence, Easton advises seeking the help of an attorney to discuss your case confidentially.
Can I Get Post-conviction Relief if There Is New Evidence in an Oklahoma Case I Was Convicted In?
In this blog post, Oklahoma City Attorney Aaron Easton explores the possibility of post-conviction relief for individuals convicted in Oklahoma cases with newly discovered evidence. Easton discusses the criteria set forth by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, including the materiality of the evidence, its reasonable probability of changing the outcome, and its non-cumulative nature. He highlights the importance of speaking to an attorney to discuss the specifics of one’s case and to determine if post-conviction relief is a viable option. Easton’s firm offers a initial consultation for those seeking assistance with their post-conviction cases.