Chawangkul v. State
2017 Ark. App. 456
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Chachawal Chawangkul was convicted by a jury of second-degree sexual assault of a child; this court previously affirmed the conviction.
- Chawangkul filed a pro se Rule 37.1 postconviction petition arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- His central claim: trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call the victim’s grandmother as a defense witness at trial.
- The trial court denied and dismissed the petition; Chawangkul appealed the denial.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the Rule 37.1 denial under the Strickland two-prong test (deficiency and prejudice) and the standard that counsel’s witness choices are typically trial strategy.
- The court held Chawangkul failed to specify the substance or admissibility of the grandmother’s testimony and thus failed to show deficient performance or resulting prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not calling the victim’s grandmother | Chawangkul: counsel erred in not calling grandmother; her testimony would have helped the defense | State: counsel’s decision whether to call witnesses is trial strategy; petitioner must show substance, admissibility, and prejudice | Court: Denied — petitioner failed to state the omitted testimony or show admissibility/prejudice, so no ineffective-assistance showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. State, 2017 Ark. 76, 511 S.W.3d 845 (procedural jurisdiction noted)
- Sandrelli v. State, 2017 Ark. 156, 517 S.W.3d 417 (standard of appellate review for Rule 37 findings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Feuget v. State, 2015 Ark. 43, 454 S.W.3d 734 (application of Strickland in Arkansas)
- Fukunaga v. State, 2016 Ark. 164, 489 S.W.3d 644 (no need to address both Strickland prongs if one fails)
- Lee v. State, 2009 Ark. 255, 308 S.W.3d 596 (prejudice standard where counsel failed to call a witness)
- Stiggers v. State, 2014 Ark. 184, 433 S.W.3d 252 (requirement to state substance and admissibility of omitted witness testimony)