Luper v. State, 2016 Ark. 371

Background

Mark Aaron Luper was convicted by a Benton County jury of raping his former stepdaughter S.H.; DNA evidence linked him to semen found on S.H.’s clothing. He was sentenced to 23 years; the court of appeals affirmed his conviction.
Luper filed a Rule 37.1 petition asserting eleven ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims; he appeals denial of the petition without an evidentiary hearing as to five claims he pressed on appeal.
The five challenged failures alleged: (1) not calling Charles Mayhew to show Robin (victim’s mother) had a financial motive; (2) not probing Robin’s alleged financial demands in divorce negotiations; (3) not introducing Walmart surveillance videos showing Luper and S.H. together the day after the alleged rape; (4) not obtaining S.H.’s phone records to show exculpatory texts or usage; (5) not asking/calling witnesses about H.H. attending car shows with Luper.
The circuit court denied relief without a hearing; the Supreme Court of Arkansas reviews denial of postconviction relief for clear error and applies Strickland v. Washington’s two-prong test (performance and prejudice).
The court held that Luper failed to show prejudice under Strickland for each claim: potential witness bias, cumulative or speculative evidence, and lack of a showing that omitted evidence would likely have changed the verdict.

Issues

Issue	Luper's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Failure to call Charles Mayhew	Mayhew would testify Robin said sale of Luper’s Camaro would "have everything I need," showing financial motive to fabricate.	Mayhew is a friend and biased; his testimony wouldn’t prove Robin expected to benefit from Luper’s imprisonment.	Denied — counsel’s choice reasonable; no Strickland prejudice shown.
Failure to explore Robin’s financial demands	Additional questioning about demands to sign over house/cars would show motive to fabricate.	Robin was extensively questioned about finances; counsel argued money motive to jury.	Denied — jury already heard financial evidence; no prejudice.
Failure to introduce Walmart videos	Videos would show S.H.’s demeanor and rebut credibility of rape claim.	Testimony did not assert S.H. displayed abnormal demeanor at Walmart; videos would be cumulative.	Denied — cumulative evidence; no reasonable probability of different outcome.
Failure to obtain S.H.’s phone records	Records could show S.H. using phone during assault and texts from Robin encouraging false allegation.	No proof records would contain exculpatory evidence; speculation is insufficient to require a hearing.	Denied — speculative; petitioner must show more than possibility of helpful evidence.
Failure to question/call witnesses about car shows	Testimony that H.H. attended car shows with Luper would rebut isolation theory.	H.H. testified (but not asked); Luper himself testified he took H.H. to car shows—additional testimony would be cumulative.	Denied — cumulative and non-prejudicial; no entitlement to relief.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
Luper v. State, 468 S.W.3d 289 (Ark. App. 2015) (appellate opinion setting out underlying facts of conviction)
Williams v. State, 385 S.W.3d 228 (Ark. 2011) (trial counsel’s tactical decisions entitled to deference)
McDaniels v. State, 432 S.W.3d 644 (Ark. 2014) (no hearing when allegation is speculative and shows no actual prejudice)
Harrison v. State, 404 S.W.3d 830 (Ark. 2012) (consider totality of evidence in ineffective-assistance claims)
Lee v. State, 308 S.W.3d 596 (Ark. 2009) (prejudice prong requires reasonable probability result would differ)