Opinion ID: 2540813
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF RCr 11.42 COUNSEL

Text: Next, Appellant contends that he is entitled to relief upon the basis that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in his RCr 11.42 proceedings. He argues that his RCr 11.42 counsel was ineffective: (1) for failing to argue that the admission of evidence of the Lincoln County assault was improper because that charge was subsequently dismissed and (2) for failing to argue that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to have the Lincoln County victim removed from the courtroom during his trial. He also argues that he received ineffective assistance of RCr 11.42 counsel because he essentially had no attorney on his behalf for most of the [six years] his 11.42 motion was pending. We directly addressed the issue of ineffective assistance of RCr 11.42 counsel in Hollon, wherein we stated [f]or further clarity, we additionally emphasize that [ineffective assistance of appellate counsel] claims are limited to counsel's performance on direct appeal; there is no counterpart for counsel's performance on RCr 11.42 motions or other requests for postconviction relief. Id. at 437. With the ink barely dry on the Hollon decision, we decline in this case to revisit the issue of ineffective assistance of RCr 11.42 counsel, and thus affirm the trial court upon this argument.