Title: Hall v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Rammie Earl HALL v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 95-166                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered October 21, 1996


1.   Attorney & client -- claim of ineffective assistance of
     counsel -- proof required. -- To prevail on any claim of
     ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner must first
     show 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 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 --
     presumption of reasonable assistance exists. -- When reviewing
     ineffective-counsel claims, a court must indulge in a strong
     presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range
     of reasonable 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.   Criminal law -- appellant's claim without merit -- claimed
     error never occurred. -- Where the appellee's amended
     information charged appellant with one count of capital murder
     but alleged both premeditated and deliberated murder "and"
     capital felony murder while committing robbery and burglary,
     appellant claimed the charges prevented the separation of
     evidentiary objections and rulings during trial; this argument
     was summarily disposed of because appellant failed to point to
     any incidence at trial where he was denied making an objection
     or was unable to obtain a ruling.  

4.   Criminal law -- amended information did not change nature or
     degree of crime charged -- appellant's argument without merit.
     -- Appellant's contention that the appellee's amended
     information increased the nature and degree of his offense was
     without merit; an amended information adding premeditated and
     deliberated capital murder does not change the nature or
     degree of the crime charged; here appellant failed to show how
     the outcome of his trial would have been different had the
     prosecutor been forced to elect between the capital murder
     crimes. 

5.   Criminal law -- information signed by deputy prosecutor valid
     -- first amended information had no effect on three properly
     filed subsequent amendments. -- Appellant's contention that
     the appellee's fourth amended information charging him with
     capital murder was invalid and should have been quashed
     because a deputy prosecutor had previously signed the first
     amended information in the name of the prosecutor but without
     the prosecutor's consent, thereby nullifying the trial court's
     subject-matter jurisdiction, was meritless; subject-matter
     jurisdiction is determined from the pleadings; here, the
     record clearly reflected a properly signed amended information
     giving the trial court jurisdiction; also, aside from his
     jurisdiction argument, appellant gave no citations of
     authority or sound argument why the appellee's first amended
     information should taint the three subsequent amendments
     properly filed in this case.

6.   Jury -- giving of erroneous instruction -- showing of
     prejudice not required. -- In cases involving a trial court's
     giving of an erroneous instruction involving the trial
     mechanism to be used in deciding either a civil or criminal
     case, the appellant is not required to demonstrate prejudice;
     however, an appellee may still demonstrate that the giving of
     an erroneous instruction was harmless. 

7.   Jury -- giving of erroneous instruction -- determination as to
     whether reversible error occurred. -- In determining whether
     reversible error resulted in giving an erroneous instruction
     omitting one element of the government's burden of proof, it
     is important to review an allegedly faulty jury instruction in
     context with the entire jury charge and the entire trial;  
     other proper jury instructions and the context of the whole
     trial may correct any error in the isolated erroneous
     instruction, and thus the jury charge as a whole properly
     conveys the government's burden to the jury. 

8.   Attorney & client -- capital murder instruction not correctly
     given -- counsel's failure to object not reversible error. --
     Appellant's argument that his counsel was ineffective by
     failing to object to defective instructions of capital murder
     failed because he could not show that, but for his counsel's
     failure to object to the trial court's omission when
     instructing the jury on capital felony murder, the jury would
     have reached a different decision; upon review of the trial
     court's other correct instructions, it appeared that the jury
     would have rendered the same verdict.

9.   Attorney & client -- lesser-included instruction not tendered
     as matter of trial strategy -- matters of trial tactics are
     not grounds for postconviction relief. -- Appellant's argument
     that his counsel was ineffective because he did not tender the
     lesser-included instruction on first-degree-felony murder was
     meritless where appellant's defense was that he had nothing to
     do with the victim's death; appellant's trial counsel could
     have foregone arguing any lesser offense to the jury because
     the lower offense was inconsistent with his defense; matters
     of trial tactics and strategy are not grounds for
     postconviction relief, and this reason alone is sufficient to
     affirm.

10.  Appeal & error -- no citation of authority given for argument
     -- no error found. -- Appellant's argument that his trial
     counsel should have objected to the jury's return of a general
     verdict was meritless where he offered no citation of
     authority or convincing argument showing he was entitled to
     such a verdict.  

11.  Attorney & client -- advice of counsel part of trial strategy
     -- no grounds for postconviction relief given. -- Appellant's
     argument that his ineffective counsel improperly advised him
     to plead guilty to the theft of the victim's credit card was
     meritless where appellant conceded that the counsel's advice
     was a matter of strategy; matters of trial tactics and
     strategy are not grounds for postconviction relief. 

12.  Appeal & error -- postconviction relief does not allow
     reargument of points already settled on appeal. --
     Postconviction relief does not provide an opportunity to
     reargue points already settled on appeal.  

13.  Attorney & client -- ineffective assistance of counsel argued
     -- argument without merit. -- Appellant's argument that his
     counsel was ineffective because the counsel never requested
     funds to employ a private investigator to properly investigate
     pretrial discovery in preparation for trial failed because he
     did not cite what specific evidence or testimony favorable to
     appellant that a private investigator would have found had one
     been employed.

14.  Attorney & client -- ineffective counsel argument failed --
     appellant had no standing to claim an expectation of privacy
     in property held by another. -- Appellant's claim that
     property belonging to him was seized without a warrant from a
     third person, and therefore, his counsel should have requested
     suppression of this evidence was meritless; an appellant does
     not have standing to claim an expectation of privacy in
     property held by another, even though that property may be
     his. 


     Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court; Harold Erwin, Judge;
affirmed.
     Appellant, pro se.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Clint Miller, Deputy Att'y
Gen., Sr. Appellate Advocate for appellee.

     Tom Glaze, Justice.
     Appellant Rammie Hall was convicted of the capital murder of
George DeClerk and sentenced to life without parole.  Hall
appealed, raising nine points for reversal, and this court found no
merit to his arguments and affirmed.  Hall v. State, 315 Ark. 385,