Simpkins v. the State.

Summary

The court affirmed Simpkins's convictions because trial counsel was not deficient for failing to object to a codefendant's statements under the Confrontation Clause. The statements did not facially identify or directly inculpate Simpkins, were introduced through testimony without obvious redactions, and became incriminating only when linked to other evidence. The court therefore found no violation requiring an objection and did not reach prejudice.