Harris v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the denial of Harris’s second postconviction motion, his request for appointed counsel, and his request for a State-funded transcript because his appellate arguments were not fairly presented. Harris failed to develop either a federal or state constitutional basis for a right to counsel in postconviction proceedings, and he failed to present the merits of his challenges to the postconviction ruling and transcript denial. The Court treated those deficiencies as waivers and declined to formulate arguments on Harris’s behalf.