Cited by

We “strongly disfavor adjudication [of an ineffectiveness claim] on direct appeal.” State v. Thompson, 161 N.H. 507, 527 (2011).

or requesting a specific instruction, his trial counsel “revived the allegation, and expanded the grounds on which the jury could convict [him].” Although “we maintain a strong preference for collateral review of ineffectiveness claims,” we permit direct appellate review in the “extraordinary case” where “the factual basis of the claim appears indisputably on the trial record.” State v. Thompson, 161 N.H. 507, 527 (2011) (quotation omitted).

Instead, the defendant maintains that trial counsel’s alleged errors fall within a limited exception to the rule that IAC claims cannot be pursued on direct appeal.

We note that the defendant has not filed a collateral proceeding seeking to challenge his conviction based upon ineffective assistance of counsel.

State v. Thompson, 161 N.H. 507, 527 (2011) (quotation omitted).

Even assuming that the defendant properly raised his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims and that they are permissible for direct appellate review, see State v. Brown, 166 N.H. 7 520, 522-23 (2014); cf. State v. Thompson, 161 N.H. 507, 527 (2011), such claims are insufficiently developed, as the defendant fails to consider or apply the two-part test used to evaluate ineffective assistance of counsel claims, see State v. Collins, 166 N.H. 210, 212-13 (2014).

We have emphasized that “ineffectiveness claims are almost always to be resolved in the first instance by the trial court in a collateral proceeding.” State v. Thompson, 161 N.H. 507, 532 (2011).

B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel The effective assistance of counsel is guaranteed by Part I, Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution.

To meet this prong of the test, the defendant must show that counsel made such egregious errors that he failed to function as the counsel the State Constitution guarantees.

State v. Thompson, 161 N.H. 507, 527 (2011) (stating direct appellate review of ineffective assistance of counsel claim permitted only in extraordinary case where factual basis of claim appears indisputably on trial record).

To meet this prong of the test, the defendant 4 must show that trial counsel made such egregious errors that he failed to function as the counsel the State Constitution guarantees.

State v. Thompson, 161 N.H. 507, 524 (2011) (generally ineffective assistance of counsel claims “should be adjudicated in the superior court by collateral review”).

State v. Thompson, 161 N.H. 507, 528 (2011); see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984).

In his brief, the defendant relies solely upon State v. Thompson, 161 N.H. 507 (2011), in support of his assertion that he may bring his ineffectiveness claim under these circumstances.

at 726-27 (child victim’s statement to mother the day after the assault was not an excited utterance), State v. Fischer, 165 N.H. 706, 709- 11 (2013) (victim’s detailed narrative of assaults, given the day after assaults occurred and after she went to the hospital for treatment and to work, did not constitute an excited utterance), and State v. Thompson, 161 N.H. 507, 532 (2011) (explaining that “the admissibility of statements made five days following a startling event runs directly contrary to

State v. Thompson, 161 N.H. 507, 524 (2011) (emphasizing ineffectiveness claims are almost always to be resolved in first instance by the trial court in a collateral proceeding).

VII To the extent that the defendant asserts an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we decline to address it pursuant to State v. Thompson, 161 N.H. 507 (2011).

State v. Thompson, 161 N.H. 507, 524-28 (2011) (observing that, generally, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim should be presented to the trial court in the first instance).

We need not decide in this appeal whether to adopt, for claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, the rule we adopted in State v. Thompson, 161 N.H. 507 (2011), for ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims.

To meet this prong of the test, the defendant must show that counsel made such egregious errors that she failed to function as the counsel the State Constitution guarantees.

*543 Compare State v. Thompson, 161 N.H. 507, 530-31 (2011) (attorney’s repeated failure to object was illogical, manifestly unreasonable, and completely irrational).

Assuming, without deciding, that the defendant properly raised this argument, we nevertheless decline to address it pursuant to State v. Thompson, 161 N.H. 507 (2011).

We consider the public defender and the appellate defender to be attorneys in the same “firm.” State v. Veale, 154 N.H. 730, 732 (2007), modified on other grounds by State v. Thompson, 161 N.H. 507 (2011).