Anderson v. State

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief, holding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the charging information, jury instructions, or verdict forms, or for making an allegedly inadequate directed-verdict motion. The information and instructions tracked the applicable hard-copy version of the terroristic-act statute, and the evidence was sufficient to present a jury question on the charged crimes. The court also rejected the appellant’s separately raised jurisdictional argument because it was not preserved and did not identify a jurisdictional defect.