Court Opinion

ID: 9669205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:43:05.637705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:53.567880
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I agree that Strickland v. Washington, _ U.S. _, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984) correctly sets forth the standard required in determining whether a defense attorney was ineffective. The correct standard of performance to be applied is that of “reasonably effective assistance.” Strickland, supra. All federal courts appear to have adopted this standard. The criteria to be used in judging the standard is where the trouble arises. I agree with Strickland that a defendant-petitioner must first show that counsel was deficient and additionally must prove prejudice. This court has many times held that a petitioner must not only show ineffective assistance of counsel but must also show he was prejudiced, thereby. Blackmon v. State, 274 Ark. 202, 623 S.W.2d 184 (1981). I find no conflict between our holding and that of Strickland and the federal courts. Therefore, for the purposes of this dissent Strickland is the standard. We all agree that both the State and Federal Constitutions give an accused the right to competent counsel and a speedy and fair trial before an impartial jury. The fact that a person with a license sits at the side of the accused is not sufficient to meet the constitutional standards of assistance of counsel. The purpose of counsel is to provide and protect the fundamental rights of assistance of counsel and fair trial which are guaranteed to everyone accused of a crime. When counsel, whether appointed or retained, fails to measure up to the reasonably effective standard the result is that the accused did not receive a fair trial. I realize that hindsight is always more accurate than foresight. To second guess the strategy of defense counsel is a dangerous thing. Even the trial attorney would likely change some tactics if he were permitted to retry a case. Likely the two best criminal defense lawyers in the country would not try the same case in the exact same manner. Therefore, I will limit my dissent to the single issue of the trial counsel allowing appellant to make a confession. The record of the trial on the appeal of this case did not reveal there was a dying declaration or that counsel had any idea one was made. Hindsight on the part of the State also affords an opportunity to straighten out some of the rough spots. If such a statement was made the only possible reason for the State not having introduced it at the trial is that appellant’s confession and testimony make the declaration unnecessary. As I understand the facts appellant obtained the services of the attorney before he talked to the officers. His confession provided the motive and details of the offense. It furnished leads and within itself likely made a prima facie case. Without the confession the record of trial reveals the State at most had substantial evidence. The confession brought in the adulterous affair which no doubt was considered by the jury in determining appellant’s guilt. Another reason I think the confession idea was not reasonably effective assistance is that there was no indication there would be any consideration whatsoever in return for the confession. The fact that there was no plea bargaining or anything of that nature indicates appellant gave up his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent without receiving even a pat on the head in exchange. The present case resembles Strickland only in subject matter. In Strickland, the accused surrendered to the polce and voluntarily gave a lengthy statement and confession. His attorney was further surprised to learn that his client had confessed to two other murders after the attorney had advised him not to talk. Again acting against his attorney’s advice he waived trial by jury and pleaded guilty to all three murders. Furthermore, he waived a jury on the sentencing phase in spite of the fact that his attorney recommended a jury. In the case before us it was the attorney who advised appellant to confess. The per curiam in this case dwells on facts which were not in the trial record. There was no mention in the trial record of a dying declaration. Neither was there anything about trial strategy included in the record. The very least that could be said is that the confession did not help the appellant. He received the maximum sentence allowed for manslaughter. The record of the trial leaves me with the impression that had counsel not advised appellant to confess the State would probably not have been able to prove a case. The appellant relied on the advice of his lawyer. Strickland went against the advice of his lawyer. It is my opinion that a lawyer who advises his client to confess is rendering less than reasonably effective assistance unless there is a corresponding concession by the State or there are other special circumstances. There is no doubt but that appellant’s lawyer is of the highest character and ability but even the best lawyer in the world sometimes makes a mistake. Hollingsworth, J., joins in this dissent.