Marlow v. State

I respectfully dissent. Appellant bases his ineffectiveness argument on trial counsel’s failure to request instructions on two defenses raised by the evidence, while allowing instructions on a defense that was not raised by the evidence. This is not sound trial strategy. As the excerpts below show, the evidence raised the issues of defense of property and self-defense as it relates to preventing robbery or aggravated robbery. The evidence did riot raise either voluntary manslaughter or self-defense as defined in the jury charge.

I agree with the majority that theories of defense to be included…