Adkins v. State, 2015 Ark. 336

Adkins pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of theft of property, and residential burglary; aggregate sentence 360 months with 120 months suspended.
He filed a Rule 37.1 postconviction petition which the trial court dismissed for lack of verification; this Court reversed on appeal and remanded for merits adjudication.
On remand the trial court denied the petition; Adkins appealed and filed a belated reply brief motion in this Court, which was denied.
State filed its brief on April 3, 2015; Adkins’ reply was due by April 20, 2015, but was tendered April 28, 2015 and rejected as untimely and overlength.
Adkins argued lack of timely posting by the State’s brief and lack of knowledge of time limits; the Court held these failed to establish good cause.
The Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief and denied the belated-reply brief motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether belated reply brief should be allowed	Adkins claimed filing delay was due to posting delays and lack of knowledge of rules	State argues no good cause shown; late filing prejudiced proceedings	Motion denied; delay not excused
Adequacy of circuit court findings on Rule 37.1 petition	Findings were insufficient to review the petition	Findings adequately outlined claims and reasons for denial	Findings adequate; no requirement for a hearing under these circumstances
Effect of Martinez v. Ryan and Trevino on counsel provision	Requests counsel under Martinez/Trevino	States not required to provide counsel in collateral review	Not required to appoint counsel under these standards
Ineffective assistance of counsel standards and prejudice	Counsel failure to challenge information, competency evaluation, and plea procedures	No prejudice shown under Strickland; actions within reasonable professional judgment	No reversible error; no adequate showing of prejudice
Coercion and mental competency/plea procedure claims	Petition asserted coercion and incompetency issues	Record shows coercion not proven; competency evaluated; plea procedure proper	Claims insufficient to overcome presumption of effectiveness; no error in findings

Houghton v. State, 2015 Ark. 252 (2015 Ark. 252) (review standard for postconviction relief affirming findings where hearing not required)
Henington v. State, 2012 Ark. 181, 403 S.W.3d 55 (2012 Ark. 181) (adequacy of circuit court findings for Rule 37.3(a) review)
Feuget v. State, 2015 Ark. 43, 454 S.W.3d 734 (2015 Ark. 43) (appellate review of postconviction petition and findings)
Nooner v. State, 339 Ark. 253, 4 S.W.3d 497 (1999) (limits on appellate consideration of new arguments raised on appeal)
Watson v. State, 2014 Ark. 203, 444 S.W.3d 835 (2014 Ark. 203) (ineffective assistance framework under Strickland)
Mancia v. State, 2015 Ark. 115, 459 S.W.3d 259 (2015 Ark. 115) (Martinez/Trevino-related claims not raised in petition; standard applied)
Stalnaker v. State, 2015 Ark. 250, S.W.3d (2015 Ark. 250) (per curiam; discussion of counsel appointment limits)
Thomas v. State, 277 Ark. 74, 639 S.W.2d 353 (1982) (coercion and plea-acceptance standards)
Akin v. State, 2011 Ark. 477 (2011 Ark. 477) (coercion and plea-related considerations)