Case Title: Drymon v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR96-260

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-02-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
Allen Eugene DRYMON v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-260                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered February 17, 1997


1.   Attorney & client -- ineffective-assistance claim -- what must be shown. -
     - To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
     the petitioner must show first that counsel's performance was
     deficient; this requires showing that counsel made errors so
     serious that counsel was not functioning as the "counsel"
     guaranteed the petitioner by the sixth amendment; second, the
     petitioner must show that the deficient performance prejudiced
     the defense, which requires showing that counsel's errors were
     so serious as to deprive the petitioner of a fair trial;
     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.  

2.   Attorney & client -- ineffective-assistance claim -- must show reasonable
     probability that decision would have been different absent errors. -- A
     court must indulge in a strong presumption that counsel's
     conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional
     assistance; the petitioner must show there is a reasonable
     probability that, but for counsel's errors, the factfinder
     would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt, i.e., the
     decision reached would have been different absent the errors;
     a reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to
     undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. 

3.   Attorney & client -- ineffective-assistance claim -- totality of evidence
     must be considered. -- In making a determination on a claim of
     ineffectiveness, the totality of the evidence before the judge
     or jury must be considered.

4.   Appeal & error -- parties' effort to abstract trial treated as motion to
     consolidate record and granted. -- Where appellant appealed from an
     order that denied postconviction relief rather than from a
     judgment that was entered after the remanding of a case, his
     appeal was not a "second or subsequent appeal," and the
     relevant portion of Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6) was not
     directly applicable; because, however, the supreme court was
     inclined to allow appellant and the State to abstract material
     portions of the trial because it was included in the record
     that was filed in appellant's direct appeal, the court treated
     the parties' effort to abstract the trial as a motion to
     consolidate the record from the direct appeal with the record
     in the appeal and granted the motion.

5.   Evidence -- rape -- uncorroborated testimony of rape victim sufficient to
     sustain conviction. -- The uncorroborated testimony of a child
     rape victim is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction.

6.   Attorney & client -- ineffective-assistance claim -- appellant did not show
     reasonable probability that outcome of trial would have been different. --
     The supreme court held that appellant did not prove that he
     received ineffective assistance of counsel where he did not
     show that he was prejudiced by his attorney's failure to move
     to suppress an inculpatory statement on the basis of A.R.Cr.P.
     Rule 2.3; the State's supplemental abstract indicated that
     each of the victims testified that appellant had intercourse
     with them; consequently, there was not a reasonable
     probability that the outcome of the trial would have been
     different even if appellant's inculpatory statement had been
     suppressed pursuant to A.R.Cr.P. Rule 2.3.


     Appeal from Washington Circuit Court; William Storey, Judge;
affirmed.
     Brenda Horn Austin, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  J. Brent Standridge, Asst.
Att'y Gen., and Rinda Baker, Law Student Admitted to Practice
Pursuant to Rule XV(E)(1)(b) of Rules Governing Admission to the
Bar of the Arkansas Supreme Court, for appellee.
     
     Per Curiam.
     The appellant, Allen Eugene Drymon, was convicted of four
counts of rape and was sentenced to fifty years' imprisonment.  We
affirmed his conviction on direct appeal in Drymon v. State, 316
Ark. 799,