holding that postconviction claim *1160 that trial counsel was ineffective for not cross-examining eight-year-old victim was insufficiently pleaded where petitioner “failed to plead any facts indicating that counsel’s decision not to cross-examine the eight-year-old victim was not sound trial strategy”
How later courts described this case
- holding that postconviction claim *1160 that trial counsel was ineffective for not cross-examining eight-year-old victim was insufficiently pleaded where petitioner “failed to plead any facts indicating that counsel’s decision not to cross-examine the eight-year-old victim was not sound trial strategy”
- holding that postconviction claim that trial counsel was ineffective for not cross-examining eight-year-old victim was insufficiently pleaded where petitioner “failed to plead any facts indicating that counsel’s decision not to cross-examine the eight-year-old victim was not sound trial strategy”
- holding that ineffective-assistance claims were insufficiently pleaded when the petitioner did not plead what questions should have been asked and "how those questions" would have resulted 125 CR-2023-0206 in favorable testimony
- holding that ineffective-assistance claims were insufficiently pleaded when petitioner did not plead what questions should have been asked and "how those questions" would have resulted 130 CR-2023-0206 in favorable testimony
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BASCHAB, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the result in part.
For the reasons set forth in my special concurrence in Clemons v. State, [Ms. CR-01-1355, November 2, 2007] — So.2d - (Ala.Crim.App.2007), I respectfully concur in the result as to Parts III and IV of the majority opinion. I concur as to the remainder of the majority opinion.