Roseboro v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Roseboro's convictions, holding that he failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to seek suppression of an eyewitness identification or call a detective to impeach the eyewitness. The identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive, and counsel's decisions were supported by reasonable trial strategy. The court also rejected Roseboro's claim of cumulative prejudice because neither alleged deficiency was established.