Nesbit v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Nesbit’s convictions, holding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a defense-of-habitation theory because the evidence showed no entry or attempted entry into Nesbit’s vehicle. Counsel also was not ineffective for failing to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument because the decision was a reasonable tactical choice and the challenged remarks responded to defense arguments rather than improperly expressing personal opinions. No separate opinions were filed.