Romeo v. State

holding on direct appeal that, although a police detective testified inaccurately, defendant had not shown that the detective made, or the State knowingly used, a false statement in violation of Napue because “defense counsel elicited a contrary (and accurate

Bartell v. State

“After reviewing the record, we could not conclude that Romeo’s appeal was wholly without merit and so totally devoid of any arguably appealable issue that it could be decided without an adversarial presentation.”

State v. Romeo