VAIDIK, J.
Because criminal proceedings were not initiated when the police interviewed Oberst on December 2, 1998, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is not implicated in this case. And because Oberst did not have the Sixth Amendment right to counsel during the December 2 interview, it does not matter what trial counsel did or did not do during that interview. In other words, Oberst did not have the right to effective representation during that interview. See 3 Wayne R. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 11.7(a) (3d ed. 2007) (“[W]here there is no constitutional right to the assistance of counsel . . . , there does not exist a constitutional right to effective representation by counsel.”). Oberst therefore cannot present an ineffective assistance of counsel claim as to this issue. [Footnote omitted.] See, e.g., United States v. Moody, 206 F.3d 609, 612-16 (6th Cir. 2000) (court held that defendant could not present a Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claim because he was not yet charged when trial counsel (wrongly) advised him to reject a plea bargain; court acknowledged the failings of such a “bright line” rule test but felt United States Supreme Court precedent mandated such a ruling), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 925 (2000); see also LaFave, supra, § 11.7(a) n.16.
MAY, J., and ROBB, J., concur.