Court Opinion

ID: 9505603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:07:10.932784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:38.869332
License: Public Domain

RUCKER, J.,
concurs in part and dissents in part as follows.
I concur in the majority’s resolution of the claims presented except the one identified as the third. To support his ineffective assistance claim, Azania alleges seventeen specific acts of omission by his trial counsel and four specific acts of omission by his appellate counsel. Because I am unable to say that the “pleadings conclusively show that petitioner is entitled to no relief” I would authorize the filing of a successive petition for post-conviction relief in order that the ineffective assistance claims may be addressed. I therefore respectfully dissent from that portion of the Court’s order ruling otherwise.

ORDER DIRECTING PUBLICATION

On November 2, 2000, an order was entered granting in part and denying in part Azania’s request for leave to file a post-conviction relief petition. A copy of that order is attached. The Court now DIRECTS West Publishing to publish the order in the N.E.2d advance sheets and the permanent volume.