Final answer: Failing to meet a court-imposed deadline is most likely not to qualify as ineffective assistance of counsel because it is a procedural issue that may not directly impact the defense's effectiveness as per Strickland v. Washington and Padilla v. Kentucky.
Datavs, 71 M.J. 420 (to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, an accused must demonstrate both (1) that his counsel's performance was deficient, and (2) that this deficiency resulted in prejudice).
One of the most common forms of ineffective assistance of counsel is a failure to adequately investigate the case. This can include failing to interview potential witnesses, failing to review or gather evidence, or failing to consult with experts.
In California, a defendant brings a Marsden motion when they want to fire their court-appointed attorney on the grounds of ineffectiveness. The court considers and rules on the motion at a Marsden Hearing. The motion can be filed in either misdemeanor or felony cases, before or during trial.
Keeping in mind the goal of ensuring a fair trial, courts require a defendant claiming ineffective assistance to prove two elements: That counsel's performance was deficient. That the deficiency prejudiced the defendant to the point that they were denied a fair trial.