Springs v. State, 2012 Ark. 87

Springs appeals the circuit court's denial of postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.5 after a death sentence for capital murder.
Trial defense alleged ineffective assistance of counsel on six grounds during sentencing and related proceedings.
A Rule 37.5 hearing in 2009 heard testimony from trial counsel and Springs' son Matthew Mooring.
The State presented mitigation witnesses; the circuit court found Matthew’s testimony would be cumulative and failed to show prejudice.
Jury found three aggravators and at least one mitigator; the direct appeal had affirmed, and Springs sought postconviction relief.
The appellate court applies Strickland and totality-of-the-evidence standards to assess whether counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to interview or call Matthew Mooring as mitigation witness	Springs argues lack of interview/calling Matthew prejudiced sentencing.	State contends testimony would be cumulative and not outcome-determinative.	No reasonable probability sentence would differ; no prejudice shown
Failure to object to prosecutor's closing-argument statements on mitigation	Counsel's failure to object misled jurors about mitigation law.	Objections would not have changed outcome; trial strategy supported nonobjection.	No prejudice; ineffective-assistance claim denied
Failure to object or seek instruction on prior violent felony aggravator (jailer threat with a comb)	Inadequate instruction on whether the incident was a felony; could affect weight of aggravator.	Evidence supported felony status; instruction would have been meritless; prejudice not shown	No deficient performance or prejudice; claim denied
Failure to object to written victim-impact statements	Written victim-impact statements were inadmissible and improperly emphasized testimony.	Counsel's failure to object was strategic; admissibility previously addressed	No relief; conclusory claim insufficient to show ineffectiveness
Failure to properly conduct voir dire on racial bias	Interracial context warranted voir dire to uncover potential juror bias.	Strategic choice not to inquire; failure to inquire did not create prejudice without bias shown.	No ineffective assistance; strategy-supported decision

Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (U.S. 2003) (reasonable probability that mitigation would be presented in some admissible form)
Sanford v. State, 25 S.W.3d 414 (Ark. 2000) (extensive mitigation investigation required to support strategy)
Pickens v. Lockhart, 714 F.2d 1467 (8th Cir. 1983) (total abdication of duty not permissible strategy)
Rankin v. State, 227 S.W.3d 924 (Ark. 2006) (larification on calling mitigating witnesses; single witness strategy caution)
Turner v. Murray, 476 U.S. 28 (U.S. 1986) (defendant must request racial-bias voir dire; blanket denial not automatic error)
Howard v. State, 238 S.W.3d 24 (Ark. 2006) (Strickland prejudice analysis requires totality of evidence)
Williams v. State, 251 S.W.3d 290 (Ark. 2007) (two-prong Strickland standard; strong presumption of reasonableness)
Coulter v. State, 31 S.W.3d 826 (Ark. 2000) (defense must show reasonable probability of different outcome with mitigation)
Greene v. State, 37 S.W.3d 579 (Ark. 2001) (mitigating evidence; admissibility at sentencing discussed)