Dixon v. State
2014 Ark. 97
| Ark. | 2014Background
- Kevin Dixon was convicted in Miller County of capital felony murder (underlying aggravated robbery) and sentenced to life without parole; this Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal.
- Dixon filed a timely, verified pro se Rule 37.1 postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel; the trial court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing and Dixon appealed.
- Major contested trial evidence included jailhouse informant Torin Smith’s testimony that Dixon confessed, and testimony about Dixon’s drug activity and statements by witness Felicia Robertson to police.
- Dixon argued counsel failed to investigate (ballistics/forensics and witnesses), failed to attack Smith’s credibility, failed to challenge admissibility of certain witness statements, and erred in plea-negotiation conduct and preservation of Rule 403 objections.
- The trial court found counsel had challenged Smith, objected to hearsay, and made strategic decisions on plea negotiations; this Court reviewed under Strickland’s two-prong standard and affirmed the denial of Rule 37 relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to investigate/prepare | Dixon: counsel did not adequately investigate ballistic/forensic evidence or interview witnesses (including Smith) | State: counsel challenged Smith and made reasonable investigation/strategic choices; claims raised first on appeal mostly forfeited | Forfeited where raised first on appeal; on the Smith issue record shows counsel attacked credibility and Dixon failed to show prejudice — no relief |
| Failure to impeach/jailhouse informant (Smith) | Dixon: counsel failed to expose Smith’s incentive to testify for charge reduction | State: counsel cross-examined Smith, argued reward motive, and called a witness to impeach him | Court found counsel did challenge Smith; Dixon did not show further investigation would have changed outcome |
| Failure to challenge admissibility of witness statements/hearsay | Dixon: counsel failed to object to and exclude statements (e.g., Robertson, others) | State: counsel objected at trial; admission was addressed on direct appeal and any error was harmless; law-of-the-case bars relitigation | Claim barred or without merit; trial counsel did object and prior appellate decision settled the issue |
| Failure to preserve/raise Rule 403 objection to drug-activity evidence | Dixon: counsel failed to obtain a ruling/preserve argument that probative value was substantially outweighed by prejudice | State: trial court admitted evidence under res gestae; even if not preserved, appellant cannot show a successful Rule 403 argument on appeal | Court held counsel not ineffective: evidence was highly probative; appellant could not show a successful Rule 403 challenge |
| Plea-negotiation failures | Dixon: counsel did not promptly or effectively negotiate to avoid life-without-parole | State: plea negotiation strategy is within counsel’s discretion; Dixon offered no factual showing he was prejudiced or that negotiations could have succeeded | Denied — strategic decision; Dixon failed to show prejudice or a plausible course that would have altered the outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Williams v. State, 369 Ark. 104, 251 S.W.3d 290 (discussing counsel-performance presumption)
- Howard v. State, 367 Ark. 18, 238 S.W.3d 24 (reasonable-probability prejudice standard includes sentencing)
- Henington v. State, 2012 Ark. 181, 403 S.W.3d 55 (presumption counsel acted reasonably; need to identify specific acts)
- McCraney v. State, 2010 Ark. 96, 360 S.W.3d 144 (postconviction ineffective-assistance principles)
- Croy v. State, 2011 Ark. 284, 383 S.W.3d 367 (must show argument would have succeeded to prove prejudice from failure to preserve)
- Abernathy v. State, 2012 Ark. 59, 386 S.W.3d 477 (conclusory allegations insufficient in Rule 37 petitions)
- Dixon v. State, 2011 Ark. 450, 385 S.W.3d 164 (direct appeal decision addressing admissibility issues and harmless error)
- Jones v. State, 308 Ark. 555, 826 S.W.2d 233 (plea-negotiation strategy is counsel’s strategic choice)
- Greene v. State, 356 Ark. 59, 146 S.W.3d 871 (failure to make meritless objection is not ineffective assistance)
- Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222, 408 S.W.3d 55 (Rule 403 balancing and prejudice/probative-value analysis)