Stanley v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the denial of Stanley’s first postconviction-relief motion, holding that his ineffective-assistance claims did not establish deficient performance or prejudice. The record showed no basis for a competency hearing, counsel’s suppression-related efforts were reasonable, and Stanley offered only conclusory support for his warrant, recording-tampering, and coercion claims. The Court also held that Stanley could not have relied on later-enacted sentencing amendments and that his guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered.