Goode v. State

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of Goode’s first postconviction motion, holding that none of his three ineffective-assistance claims satisfied the required performance and prejudice standards. Appellate counsel was not ineffective for declining to challenge a legally adequate eyewitness-identification instruction; trial counsel’s handling of hearsay during cross-examination was professionally reasonable; and no viable new-trial motion existed because counsel’s representation had ended before the test results were completed and the results would not likely have changed the verdict.