Baldwin v. State

I concur in affirming the denial of Appellant’s Motion for Postconviction Relief, but note that Appellant persuasively argues that trial counsel could have more vigorously challenged discrepancies in the similar-fact testimony and more zealously cross-examined an important State witness regarding her plea arrangement with the State.

The trial court found, however, that no prejudice could have occurred from trial counsel’s representation, based on the facts of the case. Further support of the trial court’s order is found in defense counsel’s testimony regarding Appellant’s expressed request to…