holding that, because the witness's testimony was admissible, "trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the testimony"
How later courts described this case
- holding that, because the witness's testimony was admissible, "trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the testimony"
- 'Because we conclude ... that Van Pelt's claims were insufficiently pleaded and that summary dismissal was appropriate, Van Pelt did not show 'good cause' to be entitled to discovery on those claims.'
- 'Van Pelt fails to allege with any specificity what counsel should have argued and how those particular arguments would have changed the result of his trial.'
- " ' "Rule 32 petitioners are not entitled to funds to hire experts to assist in postconviction litigation, 16 CR-2023-0953 ex parte or otherwise[;] the trial court did no err in denying the motion." ' "
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JOINER, Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the result in part.
I concur in all aspects of the Court’s opinion except Parts II.E.4-II.E.6, II.E.10, II.E.15, and II.F; as to those parts I concur in the result.