Lemaster v. State
2013 Ark. 449
| Ark. | 2013Background
- Roger Lemaster was convicted in 2010 in Lonoke County of raping his stepdaughter and sentenced to 156 months; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Lemaster filed a timely pro se Rule 37.1 postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; the trial court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing.
- Alleged deficiencies: counsel advised him not to testify at the guilt phase; counsel failed to raise denial of a continuance on direct appeal; counsel did not subpoena/call Becky Lemaster as a defense witness; counsel refused to introduce a tape-recorded phone call between the victim and her mother.
- Trial record: the State’s motion in limine excluded testimony from twelve bias witnesses proffered by defense; trial court refused a proffer and denied a continuance. The court of appeals later held the proffer should have been allowed but deemed the issue moot because the alleged target witness did not testify.
- The trial court denied relief on all claims; the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed denial on all except the recording issue, which it remanded for an evidentiary hearing because the record did not show the recording’s content or counsel’s reasons for not introducing it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for advising Lemaster not to testify at guilt phase | Counsel unreasonably advised him not to testify; his sentencing-phase testimony suggests he would have helped at guilt phase | Strategic decision; defendant chose whether to testify and offers no substance of intended testimony or how it would change outcome | Denied — tactical decision; no Strickland prejudice shown |
| Appellate ineffective assistance for not raising denial of continuance on direct appeal | Counsel should have appealed denial of continuance because exclusion of bias witnesses destroyed defense and a continuance was needed | No showing that appellate court would have granted relief; abuse-of-discretion standard and no demonstrated prejudice | Denied — failure to raise it not shown to be constitutionally deficient |
| Trial counsel ineffective for not subpoenaing/calling Becky Lemaster | If called, Becky could explain motive/divorce context and allow excluded witnesses as rebuttal | Calling her was strategic; availability and tactical choice; not automatically ineffective | Denied — decision not to call witness was within trial strategy |
| Trial counsel ineffective for refusing to introduce recorded phone call between victim and her mother | Recording allegedly showed them joking about charges and calling them "trumped up," which could impeach victim credibility | Trial court found no specific showing that recording would change outcome; introduction is strategic | Reversed and remanded — record lacks facts about recording content and counsel’s reasons; remand for evidentiary hearing limited to this issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance on appeal)
- Williams v. State, 369 Ark. 104 (discusses Strickland framework in Arkansas context)
- Koster v. State, 374 Ark. 74 (standard for reviewing denial of continuance; prejudice required)
- Wainwright v. State, 307 Ark. 569 (advice not to testify is tactical; not grounds for postconviction relief)