Background
Reney Marie Farmer was convicted of child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury and a crime-of-violence count after a three-year-old child she was babysitting suffered a skull fracture. Farmer maintained the injury was accidental, asserting that the child fell from a bed. She was adjudicated a habitual criminal and sentenced to forty-eight years in prison. A prior appeal affirmed her conviction and sentence.
Farmer later sought postconviction relief under Colorado Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(c). After an evidentiary hearing, the district court rejected her ineffective-assistance claims, including claims that trial counsel failed to secure a head-trauma expert and failed to investigate or call proposed lay witnesses.
The Court’s Holding
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. Applying Strickland, the court held that Farmer did not establish either deficient performance or prejudice regarding the unretained head-trauma expert. The postconviction court permissibly credited trial counsel’s testimony that no expert supporting Farmer’s accidental-injury theory had been identified and that funding likely would have been available if one had been found.
Farmer also offered no evidence identifying an available defense expert, describing favorable expert testimony, or showing a reasonable probability that such testimony would have changed the verdict. The court likewise deferred to the postconviction court’s findings that counsel’s investigator interviewed or attempted to interview many proposed witnesses and that counsel considered their value. Farmer did not present evidence of what any uncalled witness would have said or how the testimony would have affected the result.
Key Takeaways
- An ineffective-assistance claim based on an absent expert requires evidence that a favorable expert was available and that the omission caused prejudice.
- Appellate courts defer to supported credibility findings made by the postconviction court after an evidentiary hearing.
- Claims based on uncalled witnesses fail without evidence of the witnesses’ expected testimony and its likely effect on the outcome.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that postconviction defendants must support ineffective-assistance allegations with concrete evidence, not speculation about potentially helpful experts or witnesses. It also illustrates the substantial deference appellate courts give to trial-level credibility determinations in Rule 35(c) proceedings.