Montgomery v. State, 2011 Ark. 462

Montgomery was convicted of raping his adopted granddaughter, K.M., age six, and sentenced to 25 years in the Arkansas Department of Correction.
Montgomery filed a timely Rule 37.1 postconviction petition asserting six claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; the circuit court denied relief without a hearing.
This appeal challenges five specific denials of relief and one remanded point, with the court affirming in part and reversing/remanding in part.
The court discusses the Strickland standard (deficient performance and prejudice) and the proper role of hearings and written findings under Rule 37.3.
The opinions reflect that several credibility-related and behavioral-mrok testimony issues are not clearly resolvable on the record and require remand for further fact-finding.
The final disposition is affirmance in part and remand in part, with a specific remand for the issue of calling Chris Montgomery as a witness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to object to victim credibility testimony	Montgomery alleges trial counsel failure to object bolstered victim credibility.	State contends objections were trial strategy or meritless.	Remand for hearing; error not clear on face of record.
Failure to object to patterns of behavior/grooming testimony	Testimony about grooming/behavior was prejudicial and improper.	Testimony explained victim response and potential coaching; not reversible error.	Remand for factual development; not decidable on face of record.
Constitutional violations (Fifth/Fourteenth) and custodial statements	Counsel should have objected to Doyle/Edwards issues affecting rights.	Objections would be meritless or speculative; Doyle/Edwards not violated here.	No Rule 37 relief; some issues deemed non-prejudicial or inapplicable.
Failure to obtain additional DNA testing on condom	Additional testing could show alternate contributors and support defense.	Condom tests already excluded Montgomery; further testing unlikely to change outcome.	No relief; evidence insufficient to show prejudice or likelihood of different result.
Failure to call Chris Montgomery as a witness	Affidavit shows Chris would testify to coaching and grandmother's knowledge.	Witness choice is trial strategy; no proof of willingness to testify or impact on outcome.	Remand; possibility of favorable testimony requires factual development.

Payton v. State, 2011 Ark. 217 (Ark. 2011) (standard for reviewing postconviction findings; clearly erroneous standard)
Camacho v. State, 2011 Ark. 235 (Ark. 2011) (per curiam; requires hearing where necessary to determine merit)
Gonder v. State, 2011 Ark. 248 (Ark. 2011) (per curiam; facial merit of petition governs relief)
Lee v. State, 343 Ark. 702 (Ark. 2001) (trial strategy exception to Rule 37; not automatic relief)
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (improper use of silence to impeach; recognized as not controlling here)
Robinson v. State, 348 Ark. 280 (Ark. 2002) (custodial silence/rights invocation implications; non-prejudicial here)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (custodial statements after invocation of rights; spontaneous statements assessed)
Logan v. State, 299 Ark. 255 (Ark. 1989) (doctors’ testimony about abuse victims’ truthfulness; prejudice analysis)
Hall v. State, 15 Ark. App. 309 (Ark. App. 1985) (limits on expert testimony about typical abuse cases)
Brunson v. State, 349 Ark. 300 (Ark. 2002) (profiling testimony and reliability concerns in abuse cases)
White v. State, 367 Ark. 595 (Ark. 2006) (profiling/testimony about credibility in abuse cases)