Hayes v. State
431 S.W.3d 882
Ark.2014Background
- Hayes was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault on a family member, first-degree terroristic threatening, felon in possession of a firearm, and intimidating a witness, involving his 14-year-old son Shad.
- Postconviction relief under Rule 37 was denied by the circuit court after a hearing.
- The Court of Appeals remanded to settle the record due to gaps and inconsistencies; a supplemental transcript was filed.
- Hayes contends ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging eight trial-counsel failures related to evidentiary objections and limiting instructions.
- The circuit court made detailed findings of fact and law concluding trial counsel acted within professional judgment and Hayes failed to show prejudice under Strickland.
- On appeal, Hayes seeks remand for ruling on ignored issues and argues Strain governs mandamus relief, which the court rejects; the court affirms the Rule 37 denial in part and declines relief on the remainder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court failed to rule on some Rule 37 points. | Hayes argues remand for incomplete ruling. | State contends all issues were ruled or rendered moot by other findings. | Affirmed on the remand issue; no mandamus remedy required. |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Markham/Nations testimony. | Hayes contends improper Rule 608 testimony improperly bolstered Shad’s credibility. | State argues strategic choice and lack of prejudice. | Counsel’s failure found to be ineffective as to Rule 608; prejudice shown? No; court still affirms based on overall evidence. |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to McAfee’s testimony about prior inconsistent statements. | Hayes asserts improper admission and confrontation issues. | State defends admissibility and trial-strategy basis. | No reversal; testimony deemed admissible as prior inconsistent statements; no Strickland prejudice shown. |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the UFAP/flight-bond testimony. | Hayes argues irrelevance and prejudice of flight/bond information. | Flight evidence admissible to show consciousness of guilt; mitigation due to Hayes’s own testimony. | No Strickland prejudice; evidence viewed in totality could not change outcome. |
| Whether trial counsel’s decision not to request AMI Crim. 2d 202 limiting instruction was competent trial strategy. | Hayes claims improper limiting instruction omission. | Strategy decision; not ineffective assistance. | Strategic choice within bounds of professional judgment; not reversible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nance v. State, 339 Ark. 192 (1999) (standard for ineffective assistance under Strickland; reasonable probability required)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes performance and prejudice prongs for ineffective assistance)
- Britt v. State, 349 S.W.3d 290 (2009) (clear, contrary rule; postconviction findings reviewed for clear error)
- Montgomery v. State, 385 S.W.3d 189 (Ark. 2011) (Rule 37 decisions reviewed for reasonableness; evidentiary issues addressed)
- Hinkston v. State, 340 Ark. 530 (2000) (prohibits expert-like testimony on witness credibility; Rule 608 limitations)