Opinion ID: 1562759
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Other Murderer Theory

Text: Next and finally, appellant maintains that reasonable counsel would have investigated and presented evidence that the victim was killed by another person. Appellant believes that that effort should have focused on the victim's husband, James Revak, as the most logical suspect. However, besides generally opining that James Revak behaved suspiciously, appellant merely argues that [c]ompetent counsel would have investigated these facts in order to make a reasoned decision whether or not to introduce such evidence in support of [appellant's] defense. Appellant's Brief at 44. This is utter speculation. Appellant's argument fails to specifically describe how trial counsel was ineffective in this regard. Furthermore, appellant ignores the fact that trial counsel did in fact present evidence to suggest that James Revak was his wife's murderer. [15] Accordingly, this claim lacks arguable merit. For the foregoing reasons, appellant's skeletal claims of trial counsel ineffectiveness are without merit.