Mason v. State, 2013 Ark. 492

Frederick Dwayne Mason was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of theft of property, and one count of second-degree battery and sentenced to 660 months; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
Mason filed a Rule 37 petition claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel; the circuit court held a hearing and denied relief; Mason appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
Key contested trial facts: victim Lionel Hampton identified Mason from a photo lineup and at the scene after seeing a dark Taurus; Hampton had earlier thought Mason or his brother had previously robbed him.
Mason’s three ineffective-assistance claims: (1) counsel failed to move for a directed verdict; (2) counsel’s cross-examination “opened the door” to prejudicial testimony about a prior robbery; (3) counsel failed to investigate/prepare (e.g., review file, interview Mason’s incarcerated brother, obtain a transcript before cross-examining Dettrus Johnson).
At the Rule 37 hearing, trial counsel testified about his strategy: no directed‑verdict motion because identification was for the jury; cross‑examination intended to cast doubt by suggesting confusion between brothers; counsel asserted he reviewed the file repeatedly and read the later-produced transcript.

Issue	Mason's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving for a directed verdict	Evidence—identification—was insufficient; counsel should have moved	Identification was positive and credibility issues are for the jury; motion would fail	Denied: counsel not ineffective because a directed‑verdict motion would not have succeeded
Whether counsel opened the door to prejudicial testimony by cross‑examining Hampton about earlier identification of the Mason brothers	Cross‑examination planted prejudicial suggestion that Mason had committed prior robbery; no strategic benefit	Counsel used the line to show Hampton’s bias and possible confusion between brothers—trial tactic	Denied: cross‑examination was a reasonable tactical choice supported by professional judgment
Whether counsel failed to investigate/prepare (did not review file, failed to interview brother, lacked transcript before cross)	Counsel unprepared; would have located exculpatory facts/witnesses and obtained transcripts earlier	Counsel reviewed file multiple times; appellant fails to identify what additional evidence would have changed outcome	Denied: allegations conclusory; appellant did not show what investigation would have uncovered or resulting prejudice

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑pronged test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Stipes v. State, 315 Ark. 719 (1994) (positive identification challenges go to credibility for the fact‑finder)
Smith v. State, 337 Ark. 239 (1999) (trial court must not resolve credibility in ruling on directed‑verdict motions)
State v. Long, 311 Ark. 248 (1992) (same: court must not exceed duty by judging credibility in sufficiency review)
Davenport v. State, 373 Ark. 71 (2008) (weight of identification testimony is for jury)
Camargo v. State, 346 Ark. 118 (2001) (conclusory allegations about counsel’s preparedness are insufficient on Rule 37)