Frazier v. State, 482 S.W.3d 305

Background

Corie Rodrigus Frazier was convicted by a jury (April 23, 2013) of attempted first-degree murder, two counts of aggravated assault, and firearm possession; aggregate sentence 852 months.
Incident: Frazier shot Mark Watts five times; Sharon Watts was nearby. Frazier claimed self-defense, alleging Watts had a gun.
On direct appeal, Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed one challenged aggravated-assault conviction; mandate issued April 8, 2014.
Frazier filed a timely, verified Rule 37.1 petition (May 5, 2014) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel: inadequate pretrial investigation/cross-examination, failure to impeach Sharon Watts or present trajectory evidence, failure to strike a juror related to a police witness, and later on appeal claimed counsel failed to pursue Brady and failed to seek review to the supreme court.
The circuit court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, adopting the State's responsive pleading in full and finding Frazier failed to meet Strickland's two-prong test.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate/prepare and to impeach key witness	Counsel failed to investigate window defect and other inconsistencies; better prep would have impeached Sharon Watts and changed outcome	Record shows jury heard conflicting testimony, other witnesses supported State, and no reasonable probability additional prep would change verdict	Denied — no Strickland prejudice shown; petition without merit
Ineffective assistance — failure to strike juror related to prosecution witness	Juror Magee was related to Officer Griffin and should have been struck for implied bias	Arkansas statute does not automatically disqualify jurors related to witnesses; Magee testified she was impartial, parties consented, and petitioner was present at selection	Denied — presumption of impartiality not overcome; counsel not unreasonable
Ineffective assistance on direct appeal (failure to raise issues)	Appellate counsel was inadequate for not raising all possible sufficiency issues / developing trial record for appeal	Petitioner must show counsel omitted a particular meritorious issue that would have produced reversal; Frazier identifies no such issue	Denied — speculative allegations insufficient to satisfy Strickland for appellate counsel
Brady / prosecutorial nondisclosure of Sharon Watts' pretrial statements	Prosecutor suppressed prior inconsistent statements of Sharon Watts; counsel failed to raise Brady	Petitioner did not allege below that statements were concealed; trial counsel was aware of inconsistent statements; no showing evidence was withheld	Not considered on Rule 37 (raised first on appeal) and, in any event, no Brady violation shown
Rule 37.3(a) compliance — sufficiency of circuit-court findings	Circuit court entered a one-page order but adopted State's detailed findings; petitioner argues inadequate findings	Adoption of another party's findings satisfies Rule 37.3(a); appellate review may affirm if record conclusively shows petition lacks merit	Denied — adoption of State's findings adequate; record demonstrates petition without merit

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-pronged ineffective-assistance test)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutor's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (discussion of implied juror bias)
Beed v. State, 271 Ark. 526 (recognition of implied bias for juror closely related to witness)
Howard v. State, 367 Ark. 18 (presumption of juror impartiality and counsel conduct in jury selection)
Price v. State, 373 Ark. 435 (trier of fact may resolve conflicting testimony)
Camargo v. State, 346 Ark. 118 (mere allegation of unprepared counsel insufficient)
Scott v. State, 267 Ark. 628 (adoption of another instrument by court satisfies requirements)
Greene v. State, 356 Ark. 59 (appellate affirmance possible when record conclusively shows petition lacks merit)