In his pro se petition for discretionary review, appellant argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. In the court below, appellants counsel raised four grounds of error. The Court of Appeals considered the first three grounds of error in detail. The fourth ground of error was presented by counsel at the request of appellant. Counsel asked that this fourth ground of error alleging ineffective assistance of counsel be considered as a pro se brief. The Court of Appeals noted in its opinion that they considered the pro se brief and found no error that should be considered in the interest of justice. We granted appellants petition for discretionary review in order to consider appellants claim more closely.
