Comer v. State

A review of the brief filed in appellant’s direct appeal and his motion for postconviction relief reveals that, contrary to the trial judge’s determination, appellant did not raise identical issues in both proceedings. Thus, it was error to deny the motion on the basis that the claims had been disposed of by previous court order.

Nevertheless, we affirm the order to the extent it denies the first four postconviction claims, although we do so for a reason different from that given by the trial court. The first four claims are facially insufficient, because they fail to satisfy the “prejudice”…