[U] State v. Markishtum

Terry Markishtum appeals his conviction and sentence for first degree attempted murder. Pro se and through appellate counsel, Markishtum raises three arguments: (1) that he received ineffective assistance because the decision to have him testify during a pretrial hearing unnecessarily exposed him to impeachment by prior inconsistent statement during his subsequent cross examination at trial; (2) that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for mistrial after a States witness testified that Markishtum had on a prior occasion shot his girlfriend in the back; and (3) that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct when it argued in closing that Markishtums inability to recall the entirety of the incriminating events was inconsistent with his self-defense claim that he was in reasonable apprehension for his life. Markishtum raises several additional pro se arguments, which are addressed below. Finding no basis in the record to reverse Markishtums conviction, we affirm.