Cannady v. State, 549 S.W.3d 61

On Jan. 9, 2010 Victim was burned with hot grease and beaten at Lance Hill's residence; Cannady was accused, arrested hiding in a detached garage, and charged with first-degree assault.
Victim testified at trial identifying Cannady as the assailant; she conceded she did not see the throw in the dark but recognized Cannady's voice.
Three officers testified and repeated statements Hill made to them (e.g., that someone threw grease), and counsel made some hearsay objections but not consistently.
Cannady testified the incident was accidental: she held a pot of grease, Victim stumbled into it, and the pot inadvertently struck Victim; Cannady fled and was later found by police.
Jury convicted Cannady of first-degree assault; she was sentenced to 15 years. Direct appeal affirmed. Cannady then filed a timely Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion alleging trial counsel was ineffective for not consistently objecting to hearsay.
After an evidentiary hearing where trial counsel testified the choice to limit objections was trial strategy and some officer testimony was cumulative of Victim's, the motion court denied relief; Cannady appealed.

Issue	Cannady's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not consistently objecting to officers' recounting of Hill's statements	Counsel should have continuously objected to hearsay questions and testimony attributing statements to Hill	Counsel's intermittent objections were strategic; many officer statements were admissible for non-hearsay purposes and cumulative	Court did not reach deficiency; found no prejudice and upheld motion court's credibility-based finding that counsel acted within reasonable trial strategy
Whether Cannady was prejudiced by the alleged failures (Strickland prejudice prong)	Repeated admission of Hill's statements bolstered the State and connected Cannady to the crime; but for omissions, outcome could differ	Evidence of guilt was overwhelming and officers' statements were cumulative of Victim and other admissible evidence; any prejudice was insufficient to undermine confidence in the verdict	Court held Cannady failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome; prejudice prong not met

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warning requirements)
State v. Cannady, 389 S.W.3d 306 (direct-appeal affirmance of conviction)
Johnson v. State, 406 S.W.3d 892 (motion-court findings review standard)
Day v. State, 495 S.W.3d 773 (evidentiary-record view in post-conviction review)
Martin v. State, 538 S.W.3d 340 (deference to motion-court credibility findings)
State v. Cole, 483 S.W.3d 470 (discussing limited applicability of earlier hearsay-prejudice cases; cumulative testimony)
State v. Shigemura, 680 S.W.2d 256 (E.D. case noting prejudice when absent witness's hearsay connects accused to the crime)