Feuget v. State
2015 Ark. 43
| Ark. | 2015Background
- Feuget robbed a bank on January 15, 2010 and claimed involuntary intoxication due to prescribed medications.
- Dr. Gale testified that Zoloft and Deplin could create a toxic state affecting conduct; Dr. Bradley testified about Deplin treatment history and possible prescription.
- Feuget’s wife testified a Deplin prescription existed and was filled a week before the robbery; Feuget and his own expert supported taking Deplin at that time.
- A prescription bottle and Walgreens records were sought but excluded or not admitted; a written prescription was later produced but not admitted at trial.
- Feuget was convicted of theft of property and two counts of aggravated robbery; he later sought postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and failure to request a lesser-included offense instruction.
- The circuit court denied postconviction relief, and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to present pharmacy records | Feuget argues counsel failed to subpoena pharmacy records to corroborate Deplin prescription and impeach Dr. Bradley. | Feuget's counsel valued trial strategy and existing testimony over additional records. | No prejudicial error; failure to call a pharmacy records witness did not show a reasonable probability of different outcome. |
| Failure to request a lesser-included robbery instruction | Defense counsel should have sought a lesser-included offense instruction (robbery) given evidence on weapons and degree of offense. | Counsel's strategy to forego the lesser-included instruction was reasonable and Feuget chose not to pursue it. | Affirmed; strategy-based decision not ineffective assistance; no error in denying postconviction relief on this point. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wainwright v. State, 307 Ark. 569 (1992) (prejudice required under Strickland)
- Sartin v. State, 400 S.W.3d 694 (2012 Ark.) (Strickland standard in Arkansas postconviction)
- Sales v. State, 441 S.W.3d 883 (2014 Ark.) (standard for reviewing postconviction relief)
- Henington v. State, 403 S.W.3d 55 (2012 Ark.) (burden on petitioner; prejudice required)
- Rankin v. State, 227 S.W.3d 924 (2006) (trial tactics/strategy not basis for relief)
- Henderson v. State, 664 S.W.2d 451 (1984) (all-or-nothing strategy considerations)
- Johnson v. State, 344 S.W.3d 74 (2009 Ark.) (lesser-included offense instruction and strategy)
- Noel v. State, 26 S.W.3d 123 (2000) (consideration of total evidence in prejudice review)
- Lee v. State, 308 S.W.3d 596 (2009 Ark.) (trial testimony and cumulative evidence considerations)
- Williams v. State, 385 S.W.3d 228 (2011) (Strickland prejudice framework application)
- Anderson v. State, 385 S.W.3d 783 (2011 Ark.) (scope of argument on appeal)
- Myers v. State, 400 S.W.3d 231 (2012 Ark.) (Strickland standard applicability)