Berks v. State
2016 Ark. 364
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Jonathan Berks was convicted of second-degree murder and aggravated robbery and received consecutive 30-year sentences (60 years total); his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- After mandate, Berks filed a timely, verified Rule 37.1 postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and related claims; the trial court allowed an amended/overlength petition but denied relief and later refused to modify its order.
- Berks’s amended petition focused on two claims: (1) counsel ineffectively advised him to reject a prosecution communications/offer (plea-related claim); and (2) counsel failed to investigate/use his mental-health history to pursue a diminished-capacity/mental-disease-or-defect defense.
- The trial court found the mental-health evidence did not support the statutory affirmative defense and noted defense counsel had evaluated and consulted mental-health experts and presented mitigation testimony at sentencing.
- The trial court denied relief; Berks appealed challenging (a) the court’s view that the plea-advice claim was strategic and outside Rule 37.1 relief, (b) the treatment of the mental-health claim, and (c) adequacy of the trial-court findings under Rule 37.3(a).
- The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed, holding the petition’s allegations were conclusively without merit or sufficiently addressed by the trial court, and that counsel’s choices were within reasonable professional judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Berks) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for advising/recommending rejection of a plea (plea-bargain advice) | Counsel told Berks to reject an offer/communications; Berks says he would have accepted and was prejudiced by receiving a longer sentence | The alleged recommendation was a strategic judgment; Berks failed to plead facts showing deficient performance or that the court would have accepted a formalized plea | Denied — allegations insufficient; an erroneous strategic prediction alone does not show deficient performance or required prejudice under Strickland/Lafler unless supported by facts showing the plea would have been accepted |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/use mental-health history to assert diminished-capacity/mental-disease-or-defect defense | Counsel was unaware or failed to use Berks’s 1985 treatment history; a mental-disease defense would have been meritorious | Counsel was aware, retained experts, considered the defense, and reasonably chose a different theory; retained/State experts did not conclude Berks met statutory criteria | Denied — record shows counsel investigated; experts did not support the statutory affirmative defense; Berks did not overcome presumption of reasonable professional judgment |
| Whether the trial court’s Rule 37.3(a) findings were inadequate for appeal | Order failed to specify files/records relied upon per Rule 37.3(a) | Trial court addressed the amended claims; findings were adequate because petition allegations were conclusively without relief or were otherwise addressed | Affirmed — trial-court findings were sufficient for review or petition was conclusively without merit; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Berks v. State, 427 S.W.3d 98 (Ark. Ct. App.) (prior appeal affirming convictions)
- Beverage v. State, 458 S.W.3d 243 (Ark. 2015) (Rule 37.3 summary-denial findings requirement)
- Turner v. State, 486 S.W.3d 757 (Ark. 2016) (limits on affirming denial when trial court findings are insufficient)
- Sanders v. State, 98 S.W.3d 35 (Ark.) (failure to make sufficient written findings is reversible error)
- Adkins v. State, 469 S.W.3d 790 (Ark. 2015) (judicial notice of prior-record matters in later postconviction review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel extends to plea bargaining; prejudice standard where counsel’s deficiency affected plea decision)