After a jury trial, Levi Banks obtained a new trial in part on the ground that his trial counsel had been ineffective. The State appealed the ruling granting that relief. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s findings were inadequate to resolve the ineffectiveness claims because the order did not identify the specific acts or omissions that constituted deficient performance or explain the prejudice analysis. The appellate court nevertheless reviewed the record rather than ordering a wholly new hearing. It concluded that Banks had established ineffective assistance concerning counsel’s handling and presentation of material evidence, and that the deficiency required a new trial. The court reversed and remanded so the trial court could address Banks’s remaining claims that had become moot after the grant of a new trial. The opinion also criticized the unusual circumstance that lead counsel testified to her own alleged ineffectiveness, while emphasizing that the legal inquiry remained the Strickland performance-and-prejudice standard. The chief judge and another judge concurred.