Opinion ID: 1605876
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inadmissible Evidence at the Postconviction Hearing.

Text: The second complaint concerns testimony at the postconviction hearing which petitioner says was both inadmissible and prejudicial. Petitioner's trial counsel was a witness concerning the quality of the representation he gave petitioner. He was asked if he handled the case in accordance with the normal accepted practices of the bar of this community. Objection to this question was overruled. The objection at trial, and the argument here, is that this inquiry improperly asked Mr. Barrett to express an opinion as to his own effectiveness as petitioner's lawyer. We need not reach the merits of this argument because Mr. Barrett's answer did not respond to the question asked. Instead he said he had worked hard on the case and, if he were starting over again, he would handle it exactly the same way. This answer did not touch at all the question of normal accepted practices nor did it go to the issues of counsel's competency or effectiveness, which were the grounds for the objection. In view of the answer given, it is not necessary to review the asserted error. We find no reversible error and we affirm the trial court. AFFIRMED.