Pollard v. State, 2014 Ark. 226

Pollard was convicted in 2008 of first-degree murder and criminal use of a prohibited weapon, sentenced as a habitual offender to life and 144 months, respectively, and the convictions were affirmed on appeal.
Pollard filed a timely pro se Rule 37.1 postconviction petition in 2009, followed by amended petitions alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
The circuit court denied relief without a hearing on June 1, 2011, and Pollard timely appealed.
On appeal, Pollard asserted six claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, including failure to investigate witnesses, improper manslaughter instruction issues, failure to object to photographs, Brady violations, suppression motions, and sufficiency arguments.
The Arkansas Supreme Court reviews postconviction denials for clear error and applies Strickland’s two-prong standard, affording deference to trial counsel’s reasonable professional judgments.
The court ultimately affirmed, holding that none of Pollard’s arguments established the required Strickland prejudice or were properly preserved for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for failing to call witnesses	Pollard contends Kyle and Robinson would have supported a manslaughter theory.	Counsel’s decision not to call witnesses is trial strategy, and testimony would have been inadmissible or non-prejudicial.	No reversible error; testimony likely would not have changed outcome or been admissible.
Preservation of manslaughter instruction issue under Act 1780	Pollard seeks relief under Act 1780 for manslaughter/reckless manslaughter instructions.	Issue not preserved below; Act 1780 claim not reviewable on direct appeal.	abandoned/preserved improper review; not addressed on appeal.
Objection to photographs of the victim's body	Counsel failed to object to State’s photographs.	Grounds for objection not preserved; no new grounds raised on appeal.	Not preserved for review; affirmed on other grounds.
Brady/ suppression and sufficiency claims	Counsel failed to raise Brady issues, move to suppress, and preserve sufficiency challenge.	Issues not raised below; not preserved for appellate review.	Not preserved; affirmed.

Johnson v. State, 2014 Ark. 74 (2014 Ark. 74) (standard for evaluating postconviction relief appeals)
Pankau v. State, 2013 Ark. 162 (2013 Ark. 162) (Strickland analysis for ineffective assistance claims)
Sartin v. State, 2012 Ark. 155 (2012 Ark. 155) (clear-error review; discussion of Strickland standard)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong standard for ineffective assistance)
Williams v. State, 369 Ark. 104 (2007) (presumption of professional conduct; prejudice showing)
Moten v. State, 2013 Ark. 503 (2013 Ark. 503) (witness-identification and prejudice analysis in ineffective-assistance claims)
Boatright v. State, 2014 Ark. 66 (2014 Ark. 66) (preservation and review limitations on new arguments on appeal)
Hill v. State, 2013 Ark. 413 (2013 Ark. 413) (proper avenue for Act 1780 claims)
Abernathy v. State, 2012 Ark. 59 (2012 Ark. 59) (guidance on standard of review for ineffective assistance)
Howard v. State, 367 Ark. 18 (2006) (reasonable probability standard for prejudice)
Holloway v. State, 2013 Ark. 140 (2013 Ark. 140) (Strickland prejudice requirement applied to claims)