Taylor v. State
2015 Ark. 339
| Ark. | 2015Background
- Wayne Ladell Taylor Jr. was convicted by a Pulaski County jury of aggravated robbery, theft, first-degree battery, and committing a terroristic act arising from a drug-buy robbery and shooting; he received an aggregate 87-year sentence.
- Victims Holloway and Pickel drove to buy marijuana; police later found marijuana in their truck, but the State did not charge them for possession.
- Before trial the State obtained a motion in limine barring questioning whether the victims were charged (or not charged) with possession; the trial court permitted inquiry into possession/use/purchase facts but prohibited asking why the State had not charged them.
- Taylor appealed; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Taylor then filed a Rule 37.1 petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise on direct appeal the trial court’s limitation on cross-examination about the victims’ non-charging for marijuana (bias/leniency/confrontation). He also asserted double-jeopardy/lesser-included issues, which the State conceded and the battery conviction was dismissed for sentencing.
- The circuit court denied Taylor’s Rule 37 petition, finding appellate counsel’s omission was not prejudicial because the jury had sufficient information about the victims’ drug-related presence at the park and any constitutional confrontation claim was not preserved at trial.
- Taylor appealed the denial; the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding appellate counsel was not ineffective because the confrontation/bias arguments were not preserved below and any such claim would have been meritless on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Taylor's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising on direct appeal the trial court's limitation on cross-examining victims about why they were not charged with marijuana possession | Limitation deprived Taylor of ability to show witness bias/leniency and violated Confrontation Clause; appellate counsel should have raised it | The limitation was a relevance ruling; Taylor never preserved a confrontation/bias claim at trial, so the issue could not be raised successfully on appeal | Affirmed — appellate counsel not ineffective: the constitutional arguments were not preserved at trial and raising them on appeal would have been meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Rainer, 440 S.W.3d 315 (appellate counsel ineffective only if failure to raise an issue would have resulted in reversible error)
- Magness v. State, 461 S.W.3d 337 (failure to raise meritless argument on appeal is not ineffective assistance)
- Sherman v. State, 448 S.W.3d 704 (benchmarks for assessing whether counsel’s conduct undermined adversarial process)
- Wertz v. State, 434 S.W.3d 895 (applying Strickland standard on review of ineffective-assistance claims)
- Howard v. State, 238 S.W.3d 24 (prejudice can affect guilt or sentencing; "outcome of the trial" scope)