Brown v. State

Rory Brown petitions for hearing from a court of appeals' decision affirming his convictions of sexual abuse of a minor and incest. Brown argues that his appellate counsel had a conflict of interest and that Judge Suddock should have been disqualified from the appeals panel.

In response, the State argues that Brown can add these claims to his pending post-conviction relief application. Both of Brown's claims may involve factual disputes that would be difficult for this court to review without a trial court record.1 And both claims may be appropriate for resolution in the post-conviction…