Cuningham v. State

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of Cunningham’s postconviction petition because he failed to establish either deficient performance or resulting prejudice under the governing ineffective-assistance standard. The court rejected claims involving disclosure of a gang expert, failure to seek a continuance, jury selection, a mistrial, admission of a police-interview transcript, and hearsay objections. It also concluded that the alleged untimely disclosure did not prejudice Cunningham because the expert did not testify.