State v. Mata

Summary

The court affirmed dismissal of Mata’s successive postconviction motion. It held that exclusion of proposed exhibits was harmless because the evidence was cumulative, that Mata failed to prove an actual conflict of interest involving his initial postconviction counsel, and that his remaining claims were procedurally barred or not cognizable. The court also held that the exception permitting a successive motion when it presents the first opportunity to raise an ineffective-assistance claim did not apply. No separate opinions were filed.