This is a disambiguation page — a navigational aid which lists other pages that might otherwise share the same title. If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.
Knighton argues on appeal that counsel was ineffective because he, in effect, waived the requirement that the State prove each element of the offense without Knighton's consent.
Knighton also asserts that counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the chain of custody of the cocaine.
Knighton has not established that this was deficient performance nor that he was prejudiced by it.
Knighton fails to establish how the State's earlier disclosure of these documents would have better enabled him to present his defense such that there was a reasonable probability the jury would have acquitted him.
Knighton specifically points to the State's delay in disclosing a transcript of a statement he made to Texas officials after his arrest which, according to Knighton, would have supported his claim that his untreated high blood pressure influenced his actions during this crime spree.
Knighton, in passing in his brief to this court, also suggests his direct-appeal counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this claim on appeal, see Appellant's Opening Br.
Feeds |
Contact