Opinion ID: 2352739
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure to Pursue the Competence and Mental Retardation Issues

Text: Appellant again raises the claims that his lawyer was ineffective in failing to prove Appellant incompetent to stand trial and in failing to prove that Appellant was mentally retarded. As we have already noted above, these issues were addressed on Appellant's direct appeal and cannot be recast as ineffective assistance of counsel claims. [56] For the sake of completeness, however, we will note that Appellant fails to allege sufficient facts to support his contention that counsel could, with due diligence, have proven that he was incompetent to stand trial or that he is mentally retarded. Appellant argues that he had an extensive history of drug and alcohol abuse, including blackouts regarding the events of the crime, depression and a low IQ. But the psychiatric evaluation of Appellant that the trial court received concluded that he was competent to stand trial. And the IQ score that Appellant cites to indicates that his IQ is 76, which is high enough above the limit of 70 [57] that it was not ineffective assistance of counsel not to pursue a claim of mental retardation.