Caery v. State, 2014 Ark. 247

Torrance Caery was convicted in a bifurcated 2011 trial of aggravated residential burglary, two counts of first-degree battery in the presence of a child, and using a firearm; sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate of 1,320 months.
Arkansas Court of Appeals previously affirmed the convictions.
Caery filed a timely, verified pro se Rule 37.1 postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
The trial court denied the petition; Caery appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court and moved for an extension to file his brief.
The Supreme Court concluded the appeal could not succeed on the merits and dismissed the appeal as frivolous; the extension motion was therefore moot.

Issue	Caery's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to sever multiple offenses	Multiple charges confused the jury and prejudiced Caery	No viable ground to sever; failure to move would have been meritless	Denied — no prejudice shown; no basis to sever
Whether counsel erred by allowing prior convictions to be introduced	Prior record prejudiced the jury and should have been excluded	Prior judgments were properly used in the sentencing/habitual-offender phase	Denied — introduction occurred at sentencing; no valid objection shown
Whether counsel’s alleged poor communication and lack of visits established ineffective assistance	Counsel’s limited visits and "failure to rationalize" impeded trial preparation and witness cross-examination	Allegations are conclusory and lack factual specificity about what additional preparation or evidence would have produced	Denied — conclusory assertions insufficient to overcome presumption of effective assistance
Whether cumulative errors deprived Caery of due process and a fair trial	Counsel’s failures violated Fifth Amendment rights and deprived life/liberty	No specific factual showing of deficient performance or resulting prejudice	Denied — no factual support; Strickland standard not met

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Sartin v. State, 2012 Ark. 155, 400 S.W.3d 694 (Ark. 2012) (standard for clearly erroneous review)
Williams v. State, 369 Ark. 104, 251 S.W.3d 290 (2007) (presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within wide range of professional assistance)
Henington v. State, 2012 Ark. 181, 403 S.W.3d 55 (Ark. 2012) (requiring identification of specific acts or omissions)
McCraney v. State, 2010 Ark. 96, 360 S.W.3d 144 (Ark. 2010) (same)
Abernathy v. State, 2012 Ark. 59, 386 S.W.3d 477 (Ark. 2012) (objective reasonableness standard for counsel’s performance)
Polivka v. State, 2010 Ark. 152, 362 S.W.3d 918 (Ark. 2010) (general, unsupported claims of inadequate meetings/preparation insufficient for relief)
Furr v. State, 297 Ark. 233, 761 S.W.2d 160 (Ark. 1988) (same principle regarding unsupported preparation claims)