Anderson v. State
2015 Ark. 18
Ark.2015Background
- Anderson, pro se appellant, appeals denial of postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule 37.1 challenging capital-murder conviction and life-without-parole sentence.
- In 2010 a jury convicted Anderson of murdering Jill Ulmer, his former girlfriend; this court affirmed the judgment.
- Anderson filed a timely Rule 37.1 petition; trial court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the petition.
- Appellant raises multiple claims including lack of appointed counsel, inadequate order, ineffective assistance, and other bases.
- The circuit court issued written findings and conclusions denying relief; this Court reviews for errors that would justify relief under Strickland.
- The court ultimately affirms the denial of postconviction relief, applying Strickland and related standards to each asserted claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation and counsel appointment for Rule 37.1 | Anderson: failure to appoint counsel violated Martinez/Trevino. | State: issue not preserved below; no clear ruling. | No reversible error; preservation lacking; no sustained appointment violation. |
| Adequacy of trial court's order under Rule 37.3(a)-(c) | Anderson: order incomplete for omitted claims. | State: hearing conducted; issues implicitly resolved. | Order adequate given hearing; omitted-issues preservation required for appellate review. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel—general standard | Anderson: counsel ineffective for various reasons; prejudice shown. | State: fails Strickland prongs; no prejudice established. | No ineffective-assistance shown; prejudice not demonstrated under Strickland. |
| Specific ineffective-assistance challenges (funds, causation instruction, fingerprints/competency) | Anderson: various trial-counsel decisions ineffective. | State: strategic choices within reasonable professional judgment. | Claims fail; strategic decisions and lack of prejudice sustain trial-counsel adequacy. |
| Sufficiency-of-evidence challenge under Rule 37.1 | Anderson: sufficiency evidence challenge should be reviewed. | State: direct-attack sufficiency claims not cognizable under Rule 37.1; previously upheld on direct appeal. | Sufficiency claims not cognizable under Rule 37.1; previously affirmed on direct appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pollard v. State, 2014 Ark. 226 (Ark. 2014) (preservation conditions under Rule 37.1)
- Guevara v. State, 2014 Ark. 200 (Ark. 2014) (written-finding requirements when merited)
- State v. Rainer, 2014 Ark. 306 (Ark. 2014) (preservation of issues after evidentiary hearing)
- Stewart v. State, 2014 Ark. 419 (Ark. 2014) (scope of appellate review post-37.1 ruling)
- Delamar v. State, 2011 Ark. 87 (Ark. 2011) (Strickland prejudice standard; reasonable probability)
- Howard v. State, 367 Ark. 18 (Ark. 2006) (sentencing prejudice standard in capital cases)
- Jordan v. State, 2013 Ark. 469 (Ark. 2013) (two-prong Strickland analysis; need not address both if one fails)
- Davis v. State, 2014 Ark. 17 (Ark. 2014) (per curiam; standards for ineffective assistance claims)
- Jefferson v. State, 372 Ark. 307 (Ark. 2008) (causation and jury instruction considerations)
- Jones v. State, 336 Ark. 191 (Ark. 1999) (jurisprudence on causation instructions)
- Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1979) (analysis of burden-shifting instr. and constitutional considerations)