Copeland v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Copeland’s felony-murder and related convictions, holding that the evidence was constitutionally sufficient because the jury could reject his self-defense account based on the circumstances and inconsistencies in his testimony. The court also rejected his ineffective-assistance claim because, even assuming counsel performed deficiently by failing to pursue evidence of the victim’s prior convictions, Copeland did not show that the evidence would have been admissible or that its absence prejudiced him. The court did not decide whether Copeland was barred from asserting justification because he possessed a firearm as a convicted felon.