Spivey presents two propositions of law for our review. First, Spivey argues that his appellate attorneys were ineffective in the court of appeals because they failed to raise the ineffective assistance of trial counsel in his direct appeal to that court. Second, Spivey argues that the trial court erred in failing to specifically find that he was competent before it accepted his no contest plea and that his appellate attorneys were ineffective for failing to raise this issue on appeal.
In State v. Reed (1996),
Spivey raised both of these issues before this court in his direct appeal, and we addressed these issues in our decision, and found they lacked merit. See Spivey,
For these reasons, we affirm the court of appeals’ denial of Spivey’s application for reopening.
Judgment affirmed.
