Opinion ID: 1651956
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Second Change of Venue

Text: Echols next argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a second change of venue. The record reflects that the crimes were committed in Crittenden County. A change of venue was granted in Misskelley's case to Clay County. Likewise, Echols and Baldwin received a change of venue to Craighead County. Misskelley was tried first. Part of the State's evidence against Misskelley was his custodial confession. Approximately two weeks after Misskelley's trial in Clay County, Echols and Baldwin were tried in Jonesboro, the county seat of Craighead County. Echols contends that trial counsel was deficient in failing to ask for a second change of venue to hold the trial outside of the entire Second Judicial Circuit, of which Crittenden, Clay, and Craighead Counties are part. There is no merit to this contention. During the Rule 37 hearing, Price testified that he thought it would be in Echols's best interest to have the trial in Jonesboro. Price explained that Jonesboro was his home town, and that he would likely know more about the potential jurors. He also stated that Jonesboro, being a college town, would likely produce jurors who were more educated and liberal, something that he believed would help the defense. He further indicated that he thought it would be beneficial to the defense that many of the jurors would have been exposed to the reports of Misskelley's trial. Price reasoned that because Misskelley's conviction had rested largely on his confession, and because the confession would not be admitted during Echols's trial, he thought that potential jurors would be less inclined to convict. Echols takes issue with this last explanation, arguing that no reasonably competent attorney would have made the same decision. Alternatively, Echols alleges that it was deficient not to seek a continuance to allow the notoriety of the case to die down. However, as the State points out, Echols's argument on this point amounts to nothing more than a hindsight attack on counsel's performance. The bottom line is that Echols cannot show that the decision not to seek a second change of venue was anything other than trial strategy or that it prejudiced his defense. As this court has previously explained: The decision of whether to seek a change of venue is largely a matter of trial strategy and therefore not an issue to be debated under our post-conviction rule. To establish that the failure to seek a change in venue amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must offer some basis on which to conclude that an impartial jury was not empaneled. Petitioner here does not specify any conduct of a juror from which it can be ascertained that the juror was unprepared to afford him an impartial hearing of the evidence. Jurors are presumed unbiased, and the burden of demonstrating actual bias is on the petitioner. The essentially conclusory allegations made by petitioner are not sufficient to overcome the presumption that the jurors were truthful when they stated that they could give the petitioner a fair trial. A defendant is not entitled to a jury totally ignorant of the facts of a case, and he is not entitled to a perfect trial, only a fair one. Huls v. State, 301 Ark. 572, 580, 785 S.W.2d 467, 471-72 (1990) ( per curiam ) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). As stated above, Echols has failed to allege, let alone prove, that the jury that heard his case was biased and not impartial. Just as in Huls , Echols has offered nothing other than conclusory allegations that counsel was deficient for failing to seek a change of venue or continuance in his case. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's ruling.