Barnett v. State

I concur with the portions of the opinion addressing claims (1), (2), and (4); I dissent, however, with that part of the opinion addressing claim (3).

In his petition, Barnett claimed, among other things, that the jury venire was not sworn and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object; Barnett cited specific portions of the record in support of his claim and cited caselaw supporting his contention that failing to administer an oath to the jury venire is reversible error. The State did not dispute Barnett’s claim. (C. 28-31.) In a subsequent order summarily dismissing…