Milum v. State

I concur in the Court’s judgment and join in its opinion except in regárd to its discussion of the second issue of appellant, Rodney Milum.1

In his second issue', appellant argues that his trial counsel provided him with ineffective assistance because counsel “failed to object to the trial court’s imposition of [certain] conditions of community supervision on appellant, which are unconstitutional and otherwise invalid.” The two conditions, to which his trial counsel did not object, place restrictions on appellant’s ability to attend religious services/activities and his, ability to access the…