Hayes v. State
2011 Ark. 327
| Ark. | 2011Background
- Appellant Jeffery Hayes appeals a circuit court denial of his Rule 37.1 postconviction relief petition.
- Hayes was convicted in 2008 of two counts of rape and two counts of kidnapping, receiving a 600-month sentence.
- Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed Hayes’s conviction; he filed the Rule 37.1 petition alleging multiple grounds including ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The circuit court denied the petition; Hayes appeals again, challenging multiple claimed trial-counsel deficiencies and juror issues.
- The court applies Strickland and related Arkansas standards, affirming the denial for lack of prejudice or merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pretrial investigation adequacy | Hayes claims counsel failed to investigate the club’s metal detectors and venue layout. | State contends evidence would be immaterial and issues not properly preserved. | No reversible error; not preserved and no prejudice shown. |
| Failure to interview or call witness | Hayes claims Thompson would impeach identification by addressing victims’ intoxication. | State argues lack of prejudice and that testimony would not change outcome. | No prejudice; failure to call witness not shown to have altered trial result. |
| Expert testimony | Hayes contends an expert could negate DNA implications and support defense. | State notes DNA testimony already favorable to State; expert could not ensure outcome change. | Not ineffective; no showing the expert would likely have changed result. |
| Suppression of statements | Hayes asserts Miranda and tape reliability issues necessitated suppression. | State shows no merit to suppression claim and that counsel’s conduct cannot be meritorious without success. | No ineffective assistance; suppression unlikely to have succeeded. |
| Speedy-trial and other time calculations | Hayes contends violation of speedy-trial rights due to untimely proceedings. | State notes excludable periods and meritless objection under Shipman. | No reversible error; petition failed to show meritorious claim after exclusions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance; prejudice required)
- Payton v. State, 2011 Ark. 217 (Ark. 2011) (IAC standard under Strickland applied in Arkansas postconviction)
- Shipman v. State, 2010 Ark. 499 (Ark. 2010) (merits of IAC claims and requirement of prejudice; meritless arguments rejected)
- Mitchem v. State, 2011 Ark. 148 (Ark. 2011) (counsel not ineffective for meritless objections)
- Lee v. State, 2010 Ark. 261 (Ark. 2010) (burden to show prejudice in IAC and preserved grounds)