State v. James

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of James's postconviction claims seeking a new trial and relief for ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The alleged newly discovered evidence was cumulative of trial testimony and would not probably have changed the verdict, while the speedy-trial issues underlying the trial-counsel claims had already been resolved against James and could not be relitigated. The appellate-counsel claim failed because James did not show that counsel's omission of a novel harmless-error theory was objectively unreasonable or likely to have produced a different result.