Edward Joseph Reynolds v. State of Arkansas

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of Reynolds’s postconviction petition, holding that none of his eight ineffective-assistance claims established deficient performance and resulting prejudice. The court concluded that proposed objections and motions would have been meritless, unpreserved or nonprejudicial errors did not affect the verdict, the proposed witness was not shown to provide admissible or outcome-changing testimony, and the evidence supported the convictions. The court also declined to recognize cumulative error as a basis for ineffective-assistance relief.