Opinion ID: 668596
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Prepare a Defense Witness

Text: 59 According to Nave, Richard Beeman was able to testify that Nave was intoxicated the night before he committed the crimes with which he was charged. Nave contends his attorney was ineffective for failing to interview and properly prepare Richard Beeman prior to calling him to the stand to testify. As a result, when asked about his recollections of the evening of November 18 (the night before the murder), Beeman could not positively say that he saw Nave in an intoxicated state. At the 27.26 hearing, Beeman was asked if he remembered an incident wherein a woman was killed and [Nave] was charged with taking some hostages. Nave v. State, 757 S.W.2d at 252. Beeman responded that he did remember this incident and that he saw Nave in an intoxicated state the evening before the killing. Id. 60 [A] state court conclusion that counsel rendered effective assistance is not a finding of fact binding on the federal court to the extent stated by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(d). Strickland, 466 U.S. at 698, 104 S.Ct. at 2070. However, the findings made by the state court in deciding the claim are subject to the deference required by that statute. Id. Thus, we are required to defer to the Missouri Court of Appeals' finding that Nave's trial counsel did not fail to interview Beeman prior to calling him to the stand. Nave v. State, 757 S.W.2d at 252. Nave contends the presumption of correctness should not apply because the finding is not supported by the record, see 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254(d)(8) (1988), but his assertion is simply incorrect; there is ample evidence to support the state court's finding. We also reject Nave's suggestion that his counsel was deficient for failing to rephrase the questions he posed to Beeman and concur in the Missouri court's legal conclusion that [t]he problem was not trial counsel's question; the problem was Beeman's memory or credibility. Defense counsel cannot be held ineffective merely because different counsel, three years later, was able to formulate a question which elicited the desired response from Beeman. Nave v. State, 757 S.W.2d at 252. 61 Finally, even if Nave has satisfied his burden under Strickland 's performance prong, he has failed to demonstrate any prejudice stemming from his counsel's deficiency. Evidence was presented that indicated Nave was intoxicated when the crimes were committed, and the jury obviously did not credit this testimony. We do not believe that the jury would have been more likely to credit this testimony if it knew that Nave was intoxicated the night before the crimes were committed. As aptly stated by the state court, evidence that [Nave] was intoxicated the night before the crime does not mean he was intoxicated the morning of the murder, approximately 11 hours later. Id. For these reasons, we conclude Nave has not satisfied either of Strickland 's prongs with regard to his attorney's handling of Richard Beeman.