P. v. Jansson
Defendant David Ellis Jansson blames his three different trial lawyers for his commitment to state prison. In defendants view, if these lawyers had challenged the validity of the diagnoses contained in a diagnostic evaluation, the trial court would not have imposed the stay-away order he repeatedly violated by visiting the victim he abused. We reject this far-fetched notion that the lawyers acquiescence to a diagnostic report constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel and caused defendant to end up in state prison, and accept the Attorney Generals premise that defendant suffered no prejudice even if the evaluation was flawed. Court also reject defendants challenge to the imposition of various costs associated with his probation. Court agree with defendant, however, that he is entitled to an additional day of conduct credit.
Comments on P. v. Jansson