Boyd v. State
2017 Ark. App. 592
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Michael Boyd was convicted by a Pulaski County jury of aggravated robbery and theft based on surveillance video, teller identifications, his vehicle/license-plate match, possession of cash, and an audio-recorded police interview in which he made incriminating statements. He was sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 40 years.
- Before trial Boyd moved to suppress his custodial statements, arguing they were involuntary because Detective Gibbons promised leniency; the circuit court denied suppression after a hearing where Gibbons admitted some false statements but denied promising bond or leniency and testified Boyd waived Miranda and was criminally experienced.
- A teller (Pannell) later identified Boyd from a six-person photo lineup and in court; the circuit court twice denied pretrial motions to suppress the photo identification as suggestive and again denied the motion during trial.
- Boyd renewed a directed-verdict motion at trial and rested without presenting witnesses; the jury convicted and this court affirmed on direct appeal (Boyd I).
- Boyd filed a pro se Rule 37 petition alleging ineffective assistance: counsel failed to argue confession coercion, failed to present exculpatory evidence/DNA, and failed to call witnesses/raise an affirmative defense; the circuit court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing and provided written findings.
- On appeal from the Rule 37 denial Boyd argued (1) the court erred by not appointing counsel for his Rule 37 proceeding, and (2) counsel was ineffective for permitting a redacted confession, not presenting DNA, and not calling witnesses; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding his claims were either unpreserved, conclusory, not cognizable in Rule 37, or without merit because the record showed no deficient performance or prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to appointed counsel in Rule 37 proceeding | Boyd: Trevino/Martinez entitle him to appointed counsel for his postconviction petition | State: Boyd never requested counsel below or raised the issue in his Rule 37 petition; issue not preserved | Not preserved; appeal rejected because Boyd failed to seek appointment in circuit court |
| Suppression/ voluntariness of confession (and counsel ineffective for failing to contest) | Boyd: Detective’s false promises coerced his confession; counsel ineffective for not litigating coercion adequately | State: No clear promise of leniency; totality of circumstances and Boyd’s criminal experience support voluntariness; counsel did challenge voluntariness at trial and on appeal | Circuit court’s denial of petition affirmed; prior appellate ruling (Boyd I) found confession admissible; counsel not shown deficient or prejudicial |
| Counsel ineffective for allowing redacted confession tape to be played | Boyd: Counsel erred in permitting redacted audio/video of his interview | State: Issue was not ruled on below and therefore not preserved for appeal | Not preserved; court found no ruling in trial court and Boyd did not seek modification, so appellate review barred |
| Counsel ineffective for failing to present DNA and witness testimony | Boyd: Counsel failed to introduce DNA from a water bottle and failed to call several witnesses who would exonerate him | State: No DNA existed; trial counsel questioned detective about lack of DNA; Boyd’s allegations about witnesses were conclusory and unnamed | Affirmed: No DNA evidence to introduce; counsel not deficient; witness-claim conclusory (no names or proffered testimony) and insufficient under Strickland |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
- Barnes v. State, 2017 Ark. 76, 511 S.W.3d 845 (jurisdictional/ procedural reference used by court)
- Boyd v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 407, 500 S.W.3d 772 (affirming convictions on direct appeal; relied on by court)
- Conley v. State, 2014 Ark. 172, 433 S.W.3d 234 (standard of review for Rule 37 ineffective-assistance claims)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (authority Boyd invoked regarding appointment of counsel in postconviction context)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (authority Boyd invoked regarding appointment of counsel in postconviction context)
- McCroskey v. State, 278 Ark. 156, 644 S.W.2d 271 (Rule 37 limits on direct attacks to verdict)
- Mancia v. State, 2015 Ark. 115, 459 S.W.3d 259 (when an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary because petition, files, and records conclusively show no relief)
- Bond v. State, 2013 Ark. 298, 429 S.W.3d 185 (failure-to-call-witness claim requires naming witness and proffer of admissible testimony)