Holland v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Holland's convictions, holding that the trial court properly allowed the video-recorded statement to be used for impeachment, admitted the later written statements, and admitted those writings as similar-transaction evidence. The court also rejected Holland's ineffective-assistance claims because he failed to establish prejudice on the consent-order claim and counsel's challenged jury decisions were reasonable trial strategy. The court held that cumulative-error review was unavailable because Holland identified no second trial error or counsel deficiency to aggregate.