State v. Lacy, 2016 Ark. 38

Brandon Lacy was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death; this Rule 37.5 petition challenged his sentencing counsel’s effectiveness and failure to present an affirmative defense of mental disease or defect.
Lead trial counsel Steve Harper handled mitigation and the sentencing-phase closing; at the Rule 37 hearing Harper admitted his sentencing closing was poor and that he was exhausted.
Pretrial competency/mental evaluations by Drs. Grundy and Ross found Lacy competent and without a mental disease or defect; Dr. Forrest recommended against further testing.
At the Rule 37 hearing Lacy offered new experts: Dr. Gould (alcohol-use and depressive disorders) and Dr. Crown (neuropsychological testing diagnosing a cognitive disorder); the State’s expert Dr. Price criticized Dr. Crown’s methods and questioned the diagnosis.
The circuit court granted a new sentencing hearing based on Harper’s testimony that his performance was inadequate, but denied relief on the ground that counsel failed to present an affirmative mental-disease defense.
The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed and remanded the grant of relief (because the circuit court applied a subjective standard), and affirmed denial of relief on the mental-disease-defense claim.

Issue	Lacy's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel’s sentencing-phase performance was objectively deficient under Strickland	Harper’s admitted poor closing and testimony about exhaustion show deficient performance warranting a new sentencing hearing	Circuit court’s factual findings should be reviewed and an objective standard applied; State urged reinstatement if record shows no deficiency	Reversed and remanded: circuit court applied a subjective standard (rely on objective Strickland test); remand for proper analysis and specific written findings under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.5(i)
Whether counsel was ineffective for not presenting an affirmative defense of mental disease or defect	Failure to present neuropsychological/mental-disease defense (given evidence of alcoholism, depression, and Dr. Crown’s diagnosis) was deficient and prejudicial	Pretrial and other experts found no mental disease/defect; Dr. Price undermined Dr. Crown’s diagnosis; no expert said Lacy was legally incompetent	Affirmed: court did not clearly err in crediting State’s expert; counsel’s failure to present that affirmative defense was not deficient

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing the two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Misskelley v. State, 2010 Ark. 415 (remand required when lower court applied incorrect legal standard)
Baldwin v. State, 2010 Ark. 412 (same principle: remand to apply correct legal standard)
Mancia v. State, 2015 Ark. 115 (performance judged by objective standard of reasonableness)
Howard v. State, 367 Ark. 18 (counsel evaluated by professional standards, not by counsel’s subjective assessment)
Fudge v. State, 354 Ark. 148 (Rule 37.5(i) requires specific written findings)