Clark v. State

Summary

The court held that Clark's ineffective-assistance claims were raised at the first practicable opportunity because he remained represented by attorneys from the same public defender's office through the filing of his appeal. Because the record was not sufficiently developed to resolve those claims, the court vacated the judgment in part and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. The court affirmed the denial of relief based on the continuance request and the competency claim because Clark failed to show resulting harm, and the competency claim was also unpreserved.