Galloway v. Nooth

When post-conviction relief is granted by a showing that defendant’s trial attorney did not sufficiently investigate issues surrounding the lethality of defendant’s actions, as required element of a crime, only those crimes which require intent may be overturned. Defendant’s other convictions that do not require proof of intent are otherwise still valid.

Galloway brought action for post-conviction relief after having been convicted of arson, first-degree burglary, reckless endangerment, attempted murder, and attempted aggravated murder. The post-conviction court granted a new trial on the grounds that Galloway’s trial counsel provided inadequate assistance. Nooth appealed, arguing that Galloway’s counsel was not deficient; and that, regardless of whether counsel was deficient the post-conviction court’s grant of a new trial on all counts was an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court held that Galloway’s counsel was constitutionally deficient at trial with respect to petitioner’s convictions for attempted aggravated murder, attempted murder, and first-degree burglary, but not with respect to his other charges. The Court relied on the post-conviction court’s assessment that further investigation into the details surrounding the lethal potential of the fire was necessary for Nooth’s counsel to prepare an adequate defense. The Court held that because Galloway’s attorney did not sufficiently investigate issues surrounding the lethality of Galloway’s first fire, this affected the jury’s ability to determine if Galloway had the requisite intent to commit aggravated murder, attempted murder, and burglary. Vacated and remanded as to post-conviction relief with respect to convictions for attempted aggravated murder, attempted murder, and burglary in the first degree.