Opinion ID: 1377007
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Counsel's Failure to Address the Lack of a Rope in his Closing Argument

Text: Skillicorn, for his sixth point on appeal, argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for arguing during the guilt phase that Skillicorn and Nicklasson intended to tie up Richard Drummond and leave him in the woods but at the same time not adequately confronting the fact that they had no rope. Part of Skillicorn's defense theory at trial was that none of the men intended to kill Drummond but only to tie him up. Instead, co-defendant Allen Nicklasson snapped and decided on his own to kill him. However, Skillicorn was aware that Nicklasson had no rope. After Nicklasson's statement about snapping was properly excluded as hearsay, Skillicorn's counsel was left in the unenviable position of having a client who admitted that the men had to lose the victim in the woods and that his co-defendant had no rope to disable the victim with but did have a loaded handgun. Counsel suggested that Nicklasson perhaps intended to use his shoestrings to tie up Drummond and generally avoided mentioning the rope in his closing argument. The motion court rejected this claim. In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court noted that Skillicorn was unable to show how counsel could have effectively explain[ed] away the inconsistencies in his own confession. Further, the court concluded that trial counsel did make a strong and thorough closing argument. We agree with the motion court. On this point, counsel was clearly not ineffective. With the inadmissibility of Nicklasson's statement, counsel saw an important part of his defense strategy go by the wayside. Skillicorn admitted that he knew Nicklasson had no rope. Nicklasson, however, did have a handgun. Counsel proffered a possible alternative to the rope by mentioning the shoestrings. In his closing argument, counsel appears to have downplayed the rope issue after the prosecution had driven the issue home to the jury. Skillicorn cannot show that counsel's minimization of the rope issue was not trial strategy. Hall, 982 S.W.2d at 680. Counsel was not ineffective. The post-conviction court did not clearly err in making its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Id.