Doty v. State

2016 Ark. 341 (2016) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · October 20, 2016 · No. CR-16-126

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the denial of Adam F. Doty’s petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1. Doty alleged ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s failure to obtain an additional 911 recording, advice concerning a defense witness’s testimony, and failure to introduce photographs and ballistics-related evidence. The court held that counsel’s performance was not deficient under Strickland v. Washington and that the circuit court’s findings were not clearly erroneous.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the Court
Paul E. Danielson; Josephine Linker Hart
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Decision date
October 20, 2016
Docket number
CR-16-126
Procedural posture
Appeal from the denial, after a hearing, of a petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Standard of review
The denial of postconviction relief is not reversed unless the circuit court's findings are clearly erroneous. Ineffective-assistance claims are evaluated under the two-prong Strickland standard, considering the totality of the evidence.
Precedential value
Published Arkansas Supreme Court opinion
Parties
Adam F. Doty v. State of Arkansas
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

state post-conviction reliefpost-conviction reliefineffective assistancesixth amendmentcriminal procedure

Practice areas

criminal postconvictionineffective assistance of counselcriminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain or discover an undisclosed sixth 911 recording.
  2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for advising a defense witness not to volunteer that he should have shot or was about to shoot the victim.
  3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for declining to introduce photographs and purported ballistics-related evidence.
  4. Whether the circuit court clearly erred in denying Doty's Rule 37.1 petition.

Holdings

  1. Doty failed to establish deficient performance because counsel could not reasonably be expected to obtain a recording whose existence was unknown and which the State had not disclosed. Counsel also was not required to sit with the client's family and listen to the disclosed recordings together.
  2. Counsel's advice that Doty's father should not volunteer that he would have shot the victim was a reasonable tactical decision supported by professional judgment and therefore was not a basis for Rule 37 relief.
  3. Counsel's decision not to introduce photographs was a reasonable tactical decision and did not constitute deficient performance.
  4. The circuit court did not clearly err in denying Doty's Rule 37.1 petition because Doty failed to show that trial counsel's conduct undermined the reliability of the adversarial process.

Key quotations

The obvious problem with Doty’s argument is that trial counsel would have had no way of knowing that there was a sixth 911 call to discuss or request, as it was not provided to him. (10)
This court has consistently held that, when a decision by trial counsel is a matter of trial tactics or strategy and that decision is supported by reasonable professional judgment, then such a decision is not a proper basis for relief under Rule 37. (11)
For the above-stated reasons, and considering the totality of the evidence, we hold that the circuit court did not clearly err in denying Doty’s petition for postconviction relief. (13)

Factual background

Doty was convicted after a bench trial arising from a September 1, 2013 shooting in which Justin Yandell was shot in the knee. Doty presented a justification defense, asserting that Yandell approached aggressively while armed and that Doty believed Yandell would shoot him or his father. The Rule 37 petition challenged counsel's failure to obtain an undisclosed sixth 911 recording, counsel's advice concerning the testimony of Doty's father, and counsel's decision not to introduce photographs and related evidence.

Procedural history

Doty was convicted in the White County Circuit Court of first-degree battery and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, and its mandate issued April 23, 2015. Doty then filed a Rule 37.1 petition raising three ineffective-assistance claims. The circuit court denied relief after a hearing, and the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…