Pardo v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the denial of Pardo’s postconviction motion. It held that Pardo waived his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims by failing to brief them below and that his newly raised ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claims did not warrant relief under plain-error review. The Court also concluded that appellate counsel was not ineffective for omitting issues that were not clearly stronger than the issues counsel presented.