Anderson v. State, 2010 Ark. 404

In 2005 Anderson was convicted by jury of manufacturing a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture, and two counts of possession of substances used to manufacture with intent to deliver; he received 120 months for manufacturing and $100 in fines for the other offenses.
Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed; subsequent per curiam orders denied petitions for rehearing and review.
Anderson filed pro se Rule 37.1 postconviction petition; initial dismissal due to non-custodial status, later amended and heard; petition denied without prejudice to timely amendment, then denied after a hearing.
Rule 37.1 standards apply; appellate review respects the trial court’s findings unless clearly erroneous under Strickland v. Washington.
Anderson raised multiple ineffectiveness claims, including trial strategy choices, fingerprint analysis, witness testing, jury bias, and lack of certain evidence; the court evaluated each claim under Strickland and cumulative-effect standards.
The court affirmed denial of postconviction relief, concluding no error in trial counsel’s performance and that arguments presented did not demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel's performance was deficient under Strickland.	Anderson argues trial counsel failed to pursue available defenses and tests.	Anderson contends counsel’s strategic choices were deficient and prejudiced the outcome.	No reversible error; strategy deemed reasonable under Strickland.
Whether fingerprint analysis would have changed the outcome.	Fingerprints should have been tested to exonerate or contextualize Anderson.	Defense chose not to pursue fingerprint analysis based on defendant’s statements and omitting such testing did not prejudice trial.	No error; decision not to conduct fingerprint analysis was not ineffective.
Whether failing to interview or subpoena co-owners’ backgrounds prejudiced the defense.	Evidence about Tippett and E.B. Junior could shift focus away from Anderson.	Record showed insufficient admissible evidence that those men’ backgrounds would aid defense; strategy supported by reasoned judgment.	No reversible error; defense strategy within professional discretion.
Whether juror biased by relation to the trial judge affected verdict.	Counsel failed to object to juror related to judge.	Juror disclosed relationship; no proven actual bias; challenge deemed unsupported.	No error; no substantial showing of actual bias.

Watkins v. State, 2010 Ark. 156 (Ark. 2010) (standard for reviewing postconviction findings)
Jamett v. State, 2010 Ark. 28 (Ark. 2010) (Strickland two-prong test applied to ineffective assistance claims)
Britt v. State, 2009 Ark. 569 (Ark. 2009) (per curiam standards for evidence and trial errors)
Smith v. State, 361 S.W.3d 840 (Ark. 2010) (totality of evidence in ineffective assistance review)
Barrett v. State, 263 S.W.3d 542 (Ark. 2007) (counsel’s decisions within strategic bounds not per se ineffective)
Harrison v. State, 268 S.W.3d 324 (Ark. 2007) (Sixth Amendment performance standard; strong presumption of reasonable conduct)
McCmney v. State, 360 S.W.3d 144 (Ark. 2010) (per curiam; standards for postconviction relief)
Johnson v. State, 344 S.W.3d 74 (Ark. 2009) (per curiam; evidentiary standards in postconviction)
Weatherford v. State, 215 S.W.3d 642 (Ark. 2005) (general ineffective assistance framework)
Robertson v. State, 367 S.W.3d 538 (Ark. 2010) (totality of evidence and Strickland standard)
Echols v. State, 127 S.W.3d 486 (Ark. 2003) (counsel effectiveness; Strickland framework)
Huddleston v. State, 5 S.W.3d 46 (Ark. 1999) (cumulative error not recognized; single errors required for relief)
Polivka v. State, 362 S.W.3d 918 (Ark. 2010) (Strickland and postconviction standard application)