Beverage v. State, 2017 Ark. 23

Charles Beverage escaped a juvenile detention center in 2010, assaulted staff (one fatal heart attack), stole a vehicle, and later assaulted corrections officers; he faced multiple charges including first-degree murder and aggravated robbery.
Trial counsel requested and obtained three independent competency evaluations; each evaluator (Dr. Cochran, Ron Faupel, and Dr. Jill Brush-Strode) concluded Beverage was competent to stand trial (Brush-Strode concluded apparent failure was feigned). A fourth expert (retained by defense) agreed with those findings.
Beverage pleaded guilty on September 7, 2012, and received an aggregate sentence of 600 months’ imprisonment.
Beverage filed a Rule 37.1 postconviction petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request a competency hearing before accepting the plea; he later asserted additional medical records existed that counsel did not review.
The circuit court denied relief; this Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on a record gap. On remand the court heard testimony (including Beverage’s mother about medical records) and again denied relief, finding no prejudice from counsel’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting a competency hearing before plea	Beverage: counsel’s failure to seek a hearing was deficient and prejudiced him because records/remarks suggested incompetence	State: counsel obtained three independent evaluations showing competency; further hearing was not reasonably likely to change outcome	Court: No ineffective assistance—no prejudice shown given three independent competency findings
Whether additional medical records (allegedly withheld from counsel) would have changed competency findings	Beverage: mother gave counsel a box of medical records that would have shown incompetence	State: petitioner failed to identify how those records would negate existing evaluations	Court: Beverage did not show how additional records would overcome three independent evaluations; burden on petitioner not met

Adkins v. State, 469 S.W.3d 790 (Ark. 2015) (standard of appellate review for Rule 37 petitions)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
Taylor v. State, 427 S.W.3d 29 (Ark. 2013) (adoption of Strickland in Arkansas ineffective-assistance claims)
Strain v. State, 394 S.W.3d 294 (Ark. 2012) (applying Strickland framework)
Russell v. State, 490 S.W.3d 654 (Ark. 2016) (reasonableness standard for counsel’s professional assistance)
Henson v. State, (Ark. 2011) (2011) (prejudice requirement for competency-hearing claims)
Jones v. State, 136 S.W.3d 774 (Ark. 2003) (prejudice analysis in competency context)
Pennington v. State, (Ark. 2013) (2013) (failure of either Strickland prong is fatal to Rule 37 petition)
Campbell v. State, 670 S.W.2d 800 (Ark. 1984) (burden on petitioner to show additional evidence would negate presented evaluations)