Background
Christopher Rollins was convicted after a bench trial of aggravated battery for dousing his then-girlfriend with a flammable substance that ignited, causing severe burns, permanent disfigurement, and the loss of fingers. He received a 30-year prison sentence, followed by mandatory supervised release, and was ordered to pay restitution.
After a prior appeal resulted in a remand, the circuit court held a third-stage evidentiary hearing on Rollins’s pro se postconviction petition. Rollins alleged that trial counsel inadequately cross-examined a fire investigator about the location of the jug containing flammable liquid, failed to obtain data from two cell phones that purportedly would show a 911 call, and failed to investigate the victim’s past self-harm. The circuit court denied relief.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not commit manifest error in denying the petition after the evidentiary hearing. The decision whether and how to cross-examine the fire investigator was presumptively trial strategy, and the circuit judge—who had also presided over the bench trial—found that further questioning about the jug’s location would have had little effect on the victim’s credibility.
Rollins also failed to establish prejudice from counsel’s alleged failure to obtain cell-phone data. Even assuming the data showed that he called 911, he did not explain how that fact would have established innocence or created a reasonable probability of a different result. His self-harm claim was barred by res judicata, and because the court found no ineffective assistance on the other claims, there was no cumulative error.
Key Takeaways
- Third-stage postconviction rulings are reviewed for manifest error.
- Cross-examination choices ordinarily constitute trial strategy and require a showing that the presumption of reasonable strategy has been overcome.
- An ineffective-assistance claim fails without a concrete showing that the alleged deficiency likely affected the outcome.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that a postconviction petitioner must prove both deficient performance and prejudice at an evidentiary hearing. Allegations that potentially favorable evidence was not pursued are insufficient when the petitioner does not show how that evidence could have changed the trial result.