Wal-Ikram v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the denial of Wal-Ikram’s motion for postconviction relief. It held that counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for asking whether Wal-Ikram had ever sold drugs, because the question was consistent with the defense strategy, Wal-Ikram had chosen to testify despite the risk of opening the door to his prior convictions, and he failed to show a reasonable probability of a different result. The Court also held that any independent prosecutorial-misconduct claim was procedurally barred.