Case Title: Nichols v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR96-130

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-04-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
Marvin NICHOLS v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-130                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                Opinion delivered April 29, 1997


1.   Appeal & error -- appellant must obtain ruling in order to
     preserve argument for appeal. -- It is the appellant's
     obligation to obtain a ruling in order to preserve arguments
     for appeal.    

2.   Attorney & client -- ineffective assistance of counsel --
     proof required to prevail on claim. -- 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.

3.   Attorney & client -- strong presumption exists that counsel's
     conduct was professional -- totality of evidence considered in
     making determination on claim of ineffectiveness. -- 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; in making a
     determination on a claim of ineffectiveness, the totality of
     the evidence before the judge or jury must be considered.

4.   Attorney & client -- no prejudice shown in counsel's handling
     of pretrial investigation -- trial court affirmed. --
     Appellant's argument that his counsel did not engage in a
     reasonable pretrial investigation was without merit where
     appellant did not argue how he was prejudiced by his counsel's
     alleged failure to obtain the search warrant before the
     beginning of trial; appellant also failed to set forth what
     additional information his attorney could have obtained by
     filing a motion for discovery; because appellant failed to
     make a showing of prejudice for this alleged error, the issue
     was affirmed.


5.   Attorney & client -- appellant failed to show prejudice -- no
     additional information presented that would have affected
     outcome of trial had witnesses been interviewed. --
     Appellant's contention that he provided his counsel with a
     list of witnesses, including the names of people who were
     present when the search warrant was executed, and that his
     counsel performed deficiently because he failed to interview
     any of these witnesses prior to trial was without merit;
     appellant failed to show prejudice because he did not set
     forth any additional information, affecting the outcome of the
     trial, that would have been discovered in an interview of
     these witnesses; appellant failed to demonstrate how he was
     prejudiced by his attorney's alleged inadequate investigation
     of these witnesses.

6.   Attorney & client -- attorney's failure to interview police
     officers not shown to have any effect on outcome of trial --
     trial court affirmed where outcome of trial unaffected. --  
     Appellant's argument that his counsel did not interview any of
     the police officers that executed the search warrant at his
     home, and his contention that if such interviews had taken
     place, his counsel would have learned of the existence of the
     search warrant and the circumstances surrounding its
     execution, was without merit where appellant failed to
     demonstrate any prejudice that resulted from his counsel's
     alleged failure to interview the witnesses who testified on
     behalf of the State; where appellant did not demonstrate how
     the outcome of the trial would have been different if the
     facts had been known, the decision of the trial court was
     affirmed.


     Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court; Fred D. Davis, III,
Judge; affirmed.
     B. Kenneth Johnson and J. Eric Hagler, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Clint Miller, Deputy Att'y
Gen., Sr. Appellate Advocate for appellee.

     Per Curiam.
     The appellant, Marvin Nichols, was convicted of possession of
cocaine with intent to deliver and possession of marijuana with
intent to deliver and was sentenced as a habitual offender to a
total of eighty years in prison.  In Nichols v. State, 306 Ark.
417,