Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 30 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. CR–13–1112,CR–13–1112 |
| Parties | Rodney L. Jones, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Rodney L. Jones, pro se appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
In 2008, appellant Rodney L. Jones was charged with capital murder in the shooting death of his former wife, Orzona Fischer, for which the State sought the death penalty. He was tried by a jury in 2010 and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. We affirmed. Jones v. State, 2012 Ark. 38, 388 S.W.3d 411
.
At trial, appellant raised the affirmative defense of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, arguing that his use of prescription drugs and the stress that he had been experiencing induced him to commit the murder. There was evidence adduced at trial that appellant traveled from Colorado to Clinton, Arkansas, where he used a rifle to shoot Ms. Fischer through the front window of her house. He then returned to Colorado, disposing of the rifle in a river in Kansas. Appellant later confessed to authorities, and the rifle was recovered. A witness for the State testified that, months before appellant left Colorado, appellant had tried to convince the witness on multiple occasions to provide him with an alibi for when he traveled to Arkansas to plant drugs on the victim's land or to otherwise harm her. On cross-examination, the defense elicited testimony from the witness that the medication appellant was taking changed his behavior, making him agitated.
After the judgment was affirmed on appeal, appellant timely filed in the trial court a verified, pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1
(2010). With leave of the trial court, he was allowed to amend the petition. An evidentiary hearing was held, and the relief sought was denied. Appellant brings this appeal.
In his petition, appellant alleged that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel at trial. This court has held that it will reverse the trial court's decision granting or denying postconviction relief only when that decision is clearly erroneous. Conley v. State, 2014 Ark. 172, 433 S.W.3d 234
. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Caery v. State, 2014 Ark. 247, 2014 WL 2158140 (per curiam); Sartin v. State, 2012 Ark. 155, 400 S.W.3d 694.
When considering an appeal from a trial court's denial of a Rule 37.1
petition based on ineffective assistance of counsel, the sole question presented is whether, based on a totality of the evidence under the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the trial court clearly erred in holding that counsel's performance was not ineffective. Taylor v. State, 2013 Ark. 146, 427 S.W.3d 29.
The benchmark for judging a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be “whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052
. Pursuant to Strickland, we assess the effectiveness of counsel under a two-prong standard. First, a petitioner raising a claim of ineffective assistance must show that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the petitioner by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Caery, 2014 Ark. 247 ; Williams v. State, 369 Ark. 104, 251 S.W.3d 290 (2007). There is a strong presumption that trial counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of professional assistance, and an appellant has the burden of overcoming this presumption by identifying specific acts or omissions of trial counsel, which, when viewed from counsel's perspective at the time of the trial, could not have been the result of reasonable professional judgment. Henington v. State, 2012 Ark. 181, 403 S.W.3d 55 ; McCraney v. State, 2010 Ark. 96, 360 S.W.3d 144 (per curiam). Second, the petitioner must show that counsel's deficient performance so prejudiced petitioner's defense that he was deprived of a fair trial. Holloway v. State, 2013 Ark. 140, 426 S.W.3d 462. A petitioner making an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim must show that his counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Abernathy v. State, 2012 Ark. 59, 386 S.W.3d 477 (per curiam). The petitioner must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the fact-finder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt, i.e., the decision reached would have been different absent the errors. Breeden v. State, 2014 Ark. 159, 432 S.W.3d 618 (per curiam). A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. Id. The language, “the outcome of the trial,” refers not only to the finding of guilt or innocence, but also to possible prejudice in sentencing. Id. Unless a petitioner makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction resulted from a breakdown in the adversarial process that renders the result unreliable. Id. “[T]here is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim ... to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
In his brief, appellant initially argues that his attorney was ineffective because he failed to investigate the full extent of the effect that the drugs he had been prescribed could have on human behavior.1 He focuses particularly on Chantix
and Cymbalta, two drugs with a “black box” warning of documented history of causing psychotic behavior in some patients, but he also contends that the other drugs he was taking had adverse psychological effects as well. He asserts that counsel should have looked beyond the warning label on the drugs to find evidence to establish that the drugs, and consuming the drugs in combination, were capable of producing psychosis.
At the evidentiary hearing, counsel testified that the effect of the drugs on appellant formed the “cornerstone” of the defense. Expert testimony was presented by defense witness Dr. Bob Gale, a forensic psychiatrist and neurologist, that appellant was suffering from depression and fibromyalgia
and that the drugs in question could produce psychosis. It was Dr. Gale's conclusion that appellant had experienced a “brief psychotic disorder,” which Dr. Gale testified constituted a mental disorder and a mental defect. Dr. Gale further testified that he had reviewed the police and investigative reports, witness statements, appellant's medical records, and the record of his prescription drugs. Dr. Gale also consulted with a doctor of pharmacy concerning the effects of appellant's prescriptions, both individually and in combination, on a person like appellant who was experiencing depression and fibromyalgia. It was Dr. Gale's opinion that appellant was unable, due to his delusional state, to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Dr. Gale testified at length as to the information on which he based his conclusion, including testimony on the stressors in appellant's life, appellant's chronic pain and depression, the neurological effect on the brain of the drugs appellant was taking, and the medical evidence that demonstrated the dangers of the drugs.2
Another expert, who also evaluated appellant, testified that appellant suffered from depression but had the capacity to form the culpable mental state necessary to commit the offense charged and to engage in purposeful behavior. The expert concluded that appellant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect.
It was for the jury to assess the credibility of the expert witnesses and decide whom to believe. See Green v. State, 2013 Ark. 497, 430 S.W.3d 729
(citing Tryon v. State, 371 Ark. 25, 263 S.W.3d 475 (2007) ). The jury determines, not merely the credibility of witnesses, but the weight and value of their testimony. Jordan v. State, 2013 Ark. 469, 2013 WL 6046053
(per curiam) (citing Nelson v. State, 344 Ark. 407, 39 S.W.3d 791 (2001) (per curiam)). The jury may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence and may choose to believe the State's account of the facts rather than the defendant's. Tryon, 371 Ark. 25, 263 S.W.3d 475.
Beyond pointing to copious examples of the adverse effects of the drugs on other people and asserting that counsel should have done more testing to determine the severity of his mental problems, appellant did not show that there was some specific information that further investigation into the drugs or testing could have revealed that could have been applied to the facts of his case. To warrant postconviction relief on the ground that counsel was ineffective for failure to perform adequate investigation, a petitioner must delineate the actual prejudice that arose from the failure to investigate and demonstrate a reasonable probability that the specific information that would have been uncovered with further investigation could have changed the trial outcome. Green v. State, 2014 Ark. 284, 2014 WL 2814866
(per curiam); Bryant, 2013 Ark. 305, 429 S.W.3d 193. This court has held that general assertions, unsupported with facts, that counsel did not prepare for trial aggressively enough, do not provide a basis for a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. Chunestudy v. State, 2014 Ark. 345, 438 S.W.3d 923 (per curiam) (citing Polivka v. State, 2010 Ark. 152, 362 S.W.3d 918 ). The burden is entirely on the claimant to provide facts that affirmatively support his or her claims of prejudice; neither conclusory statements nor allegations without factual substantiation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Luper v. State
...The jury determines not only the credibility of witnesses, but also the weight and value of their testimony. See, e.g. , Jones v. State , 2014 Ark. 448, 486 S.W.3d 743. Mayhew's testimony may have had an adverse effect on Robin's credibility. On the other hand, the jury might have dismissed......
-
Williams v. State, CR–15–658
...interest in the outcome of the proceeding, the court is free to believe all or part of any witness's testimony. Jones v. State , 2014 Ark. 448, 486 S.W.3d 743 (per curiam). We will not overturn the decision of the trial court in a matter based on an assessment of credibility by the trier of......
-
Shadwick v. State
...notifications, Shadwick fails to make a convincing claim that he is entitled to postconviction relief. See Jones v. State , 2014 Ark. 448, at 6–7, 486 S.W.3d 743, 748 (per curiam) ("The burden is entirely on the claimant to provide facts that affirmatively support his or her claims of preju......
-
Smith v. State
...its decision on the Rule 37 petition, the circuit court was not required to accept appellant's allegations as truthful. Jones v. State , 2014 Ark. 448, 486 S.W.3d 743. Here, the circuit court found counsel's testimony concerning whether he was informed that a juror was sleeping more credibl......