Backus v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the denial of Backus's first postconviction motion, holding that neither trial nor appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. Backus failed to show a reasonable probability that additional litigation of witness inconsistencies, the plain-view issue, the validity of the traffic stop, or alleged appellate omissions would have changed the suppression ruling or direct-appeal result. The Court also held that the ordinary prejudice requirement applied because appellate counsel had meaningfully challenged the legality of the traffic stop.