Appellant's Brief - Washington State Courts

B. Mr. Hendrickson received ineffective assistance of
counsel where his trial counsel failed to object to Mr.
Rogers' offering hearsay testimony.
In order to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel,
a appellant must show (1) that trial counsel's conduct was deficient, i.e.,
that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and (2) that the
deficient performance resulted in prejudice, i.e., that there is a reasonable
possibility that, but for the deficient conduct, the outcome of the
proceeding would have differed. State v. Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d 126,
101 P.3d 80 (2005).
There is a strong presumption that defense counsel's conduct is not
deficient, however, there is a sufficient basis to rebut such a presumption
where there is no conceivable legitimate tactic explaining counsel's
performance. State v. Reichenbach, 153 Wn.2d 126, 101 P.3d 80 (2005)
Where a defendant has received ineffective assistance of counsel,
the proper remedy is remand for a new trial with new counsel. State v.
Ermert, 94 Wn.2d 839, 851, 621 P.2d 121 (1980).
Here, Mr. Rogers was the only source for any evidence regarding
Mr. Noe and his lost social security card. Mr. Noe did not testifl. All of
the evidence relating to Mr. Noe and his loss of his social security card was
introduced through Mr. Rogers in the form of hearsay. See RP 68-69. Mr.
Hendrickson's trial counsel did not once object to Mr. Rogers' repetition