Bryant v. State
2013 Ark. 305
| Ark. | 2013Background
- Bryant was convicted in Boone County Circuit Court of two counts of rape and two counts of second-degree sexual assault, receiving life plus 40 years.
- This is Bryant’s pro se postconviction-relief appeal under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 after an earlier direct-appeal affirmance.
- The trial court denied postconviction relief after a hearing; Bryant appeals pro se arguing ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Arkansas standard for postconviction relief requires clear error in the trial court’s findings; the court reviews the record de novo for mixed questions of fact and law.
- The court reviews Strickland two-prong test: deficient performance and resulting prejudice; counsel’s strategic decisions are generally reviewed for reasonableness.
- Two main points concern counsel’s cross-examination strategy and failure to obtain/investigate Montgomery County victim statements; trial court found strategies reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was counsel ineffective for cross-examining two witnesses and for investigation decisions? | Bryant | State | No; court found trial strategy reasonable; no error |
| Did counsel’s handling of the Montgomery County conviction cross-examination prejudice Bryant? | Bryant | State | No; strategic choice not to cross-examine deemed reasonable; no prejudice |
| Did the Rule 37.1 record support a cumulative-error reversal? | Bryant | State | Not recognized; no cumulative-error relief in Rule 37.1 context |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Adams v. State, 2013 Ark. 174 (Ark. 2013) (trial-strategy decisions constitute reasonable professional judgment)
- Abernathy v. State, 2012 Ark. 59 (Ark. 2012) (presumption of effectiveness; need specific omissions)
- Hickey v. State, 2013 Ark. 237 (Ark. 2013) (trial-strategy decisions, even if improvident, fall within professional judgment)
- Nickelson v. State, 2013 Ark. 252 (Ark. 2013) (counsel not required to cross-examine for cumulative-error purpose)
- Small v. State, 371 Ark. 244 (Ark. 2007) (cross-examination and strategy are matters of professional judgment)