COA holds that trial attorney had no duty to ensure his client reviewed video evidence before pleading guilty
State v. Corey L. Gransberry, 2025AP1770-CR, 9/9/26, District I (recommended for publication); case activity
Although Gransberry tries to develop a novel ineffectiveness claim, COA rejects his arguments based on an alleged failure to review certain evidence and affirms.
Gransberry faced serious charges for his alleged role in a shooting. (¶4). He rejected two plea offers and was convicted following a jury trial. (¶7). Postconviction, he alleged that his lawyer failed to adequately advise him in conjunction with the decision to reject the plea offers. He claimed that counsel performed deficiently by not ensuring that Gransberry viewed certain video evidence. (¶9). In essence, it appears that Gransberry did not believe one of the State’s witnesses had cooperated with the police; he therefore argues that he needed to have a video of that person’s interview shown to him in order to make an adequate decision. (Id.).
COA holds Gransberry has not pleaded deficient performance. (¶15). The record reflects that Gransberry knew what the video evidence showed, even if he did not personally view it. (Id.). “There is no allegation that trial counsel himself failed to review the discovery, understand its significance, or inform Gransberry of its contents, nor is there any indication that Gransberry requested to review any evidence with counsel, including the [evidence at issue in this appeal.]” (¶15).Trial counsel complied with his ethical duties to “explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions” and COA rejects Gransberry’s argument that his young age or other limitations meant that counsel had a constitutionally-imposed duty to make sure his client viewed the evidence before making a decision. (¶¶16-17).
The facts are scant here, but it seems like Gransberry did not believe in the evidence the State claimed to possess. He therefore insists that, under the unique facts of this case, counsel had a duty to actually show him the evidence to correct this apparently faulty understanding. The situation is very fact-intensive, so we are a little surprised it has been recommended for publication. Perhaps the fact-intensive nature of the allegations will be a hook for a PFR alleging that this unique claim should have been hashed out on the record, rather than being rejected based on what the other evidence in the cold appellate record purports to show.