Hickey v. State
2013 Ark. 237
| Ark. | 2013Background
- 2009: Hickey convicted by jury of rape, kidnapping, and first‑degree terroristic threatening; aggregate life sentence imposed.
- This court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal, Hickey v. State, 2010 Ark. 109, 2010 WL 745919.
- Postmandate, Hickey filed a pro se Rule 37.1 petition asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Claims included failure to obtain a medical expert on lack of DNA, failure to investigate the lack of physical evidence, failure to present a detailed timeline, and failure to call Hickey as a witness.
- Circuit court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing; appellant appeals the denial.
- This opinion analyzes Strickland-based ineffective-assistance claims under Rule 37.3(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to obtain DNA expert | Hickey contends DNA testimony would show no DNA match and undermine guilt | State contends no prejudice; testimony unnecessary given existing DNA-absence evidence | Denied; no prejudice shown; trial evidence already established lack of Hickey DNA. |
| Failure to investigate lack of physical evidence | Counsel failed to investigate and present lack of physical evidence | Standard Strickland prejudice not shown; evidence already presented | Denied; no showing of prejudice; jury aware of lack of corroborating physical evidence. |
| Failure to present a timeline of events | A timeline would reveal inconsistencies in victim’s testimony | Strategy and lack of specificity dooms claim | Denied; no demonstrated Strickland prejudice; trial strategy within discretion. |
| Failure to call Hickey as a witness on his own behalf | Counsel coerced Hickey not to testify; he would have testified to innocence | Decision to testify is tactical; Hickey affirmed non-testimony at trial | Denied; strategic decision; Rule 37.3(a) complied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Andrews v. State, 344 Ark. 606 (Ark. 2001) (reiterates Strickland prejudice requirement)
- Noel v. State, 342 Ark. 35 (Ark. 2000) (presumption of reasonable assistance; defense burden)
- Burton v. State, 367 Ark. 109 (Ark. 2006) (defense counsel’s reasonable professional judgment governs)
- Greene v. State, 356 Ark. 59 (Ark. 2004) (Rule 37.3(a) findings; sufficiency of record)
- Carter v. State, 342 Ark. 535 (Ark. 2000) (reversible error for missing Rule 37.3(a) findings)
- Whitmore v. State, 299 Ark. 55 (Ark. 1989) (counsel's trial decisions are strategic; no relief)
- Nance v. State, 339 Ark. 192 (Ark. 1999) (counsel’s strategic decisions insulated from relief)
- Springs v. State, 2012 Ark. 87 (Ark. 2012) (trial strategy generally not ineffectiveness)
- Isom v. State, 284 Ark. 426 (Ark. 1985) (not testifying is tactical; not grounds for relief)
- Scott v. State, 303 Ark. 197 (Ark. 1990) (mere error in strategy does not prove ineffectiveness)
- Rheuark v. State, 299 Ark. 243 (Ark. 1989) (general ineffectiveness standards)
- Chenowith v. State, 341 Ark. 722 (Ark. 2000) (right to testify is strategic; trial tactics not relief)