Hoyle v. State (Per Curiam)
Annotate this CaseFollowing his conviction on two counts of manslaughter and one count of first-degree battery, Appellant Eric Hoyle filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court found that counsel was not ineffective. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not clearly err in (1) determining that Appellant failed to support his claim that there was attorney error in dealing with the plea negotiations; (2) determining that counsel's decision not to object to certain hearsay was tactical and based on reasonable professional judgment; (3) finding Appellant's defense was not prejudiced by counsel's failure to object to an amendment of the information; (4) finding that counsel exercised reasonable professional judgment in deciding not to object to evidence of prior bad acts; and (5) finding that counsel was not ineffective for failing to request a reduction in sentence under Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-107 when the motion would have been denied.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.