Ingram v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Ingram’s convictions, holding that he failed to establish prejudice from any of three alleged instances of ineffective assistance of counsel. Even assuming counsel performed deficiently by permitting victim-character testimony, failing to redact a brief reference to Ingram’s juvenile history, and failing to object to the use of “conviction” for a first-offender sentence, the strong evidence of guilt foreclosed a reasonable probability of a different result. The court also rejected Ingram’s cumulative-error claim because he could not show actual prejudice.