Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim Denial In Guam

In People v. Kintaro, Guam court reiterated that in determining whether a criminal defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel we will employ the two-prong test from the U.S. Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). In Kintaro, an appellant challenged his driving under the influence (DUI) conviction. the appellant argued that his lawyer provided him with ineffective assistance by failing to object when the prosecution relied solely upon appellant's admission and offered no proof that appellant was driving on that occasion. Kintaro at P13. We disagreed with appellant in that case because we noted that appellant's defense needed to admit that appellant was driving at the time of his arrest in order to assert other defenses. Id. at P16.