holding, in a post-conviction relief matter, that Brown failed to meet his burden of proving the solicitor committed a Doyle violation and that trial counsel erred in failing to object when there was "no evidence in the record that Brown ever received the Miranda warnings"
How later courts described this case
- holding, in a post-conviction relief matter, that Brown failed to meet his burden of proving the solicitor committed a Doyle violation and that trial counsel erred in failing to object when there was "no evidence in the record that Brown ever received the Miranda warnings"
- stating "[t]his court gives great deference to the post- conviction relief (PCR) court's findings of fact and conclusions of law"
- holding PCR applicant failed to prove Doyle violation where no evidence showed he had been given Miranda warnings
- "[W]here counsel articulates a valid reason for employing a certain strategy, such conduct will not be deemed ineffective assistance of counsel." (alteration in original
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HEARN, C.J.,
concurring in a separate opinion:
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but would simply dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.