Smith v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the denial of Smith’s second motion for postconviction relief because both his first and second motions were procedurally barred. Smith’s first motion was untimely, and neither the alleged retaliatory killing nor the previously disclosed video constituted new evidence of actual innocence. The Court also concluded that Smith could not establish prejudice from counsel’s alleged failure to file a direct appeal and that any confusion between a direct appeal and a sentence-modification appeal was harmless.