Boatwright v. State
2014 Ark. 66
| Ark. | 2014Background
- Charles Alvin Boatright was convicted by a jury of one count of rape and ten counts of possessing child pornography; trial court sentenced him to an aggregate 600 months’ imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed on direct appeal.
- During a search of Boatright’s sister’s house (where he lived), officers discovered CDs containing child pornography in Boatright’s bedroom; victim testified to sexual abuse when she was 5–6 years old.
- Boatright filed a timely pro se Rule 37.1 petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel on multiple grounds (failure to investigate, failure to file a suppression motion, failure to call witnesses, insufficient communication, and failure to pursue a prosecutorial conflict).
- At the Rule 37.1 hearing, trial counsel testified he met with Boatright 15–20 times, investigated defenses Boatright proposed, contacted potential witnesses who proved hostile, and declined to pursue a suppression motion because it lacked merit.
- The trial court denied the Rule 37.1 petition after rejecting each ineffective-assistance claim; the court found no conflict or prejudice from the deputy prosecutor’s past probate work.
- On appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court, Boatright’s claims were largely deemed conclusory, unsupported by evidence, and/or raised for the first time on appeal; the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present witnesses | Boatright: counsel failed to investigate, interview, or call witnesses who would support his theory that CDs were planted and family was hostile | State: counsel investigated, contacted witnesses who were hostile; strategic witness choices are within counsel’s judgment | Held: Denied — allegations were conclusory; Boatright failed to name witnesses or proffer their testimony; trial-counsel strategy upheld |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress the CDs/DVDs | Boatright: search warrant defective (did not include his name); suppression would have been meritorious | State: warrant described place/things to be seized as required; name not required; motion would be meritless | Held: Denied — failure to raise meritless objection not ineffective assistance |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for inadequate communication and strategy development | Boatright: counsel spent insufficient time and did not develop trial strategy with him | State: counsel met 15–20 times, investigated defenses, advised against testimony and plea rejection; Boatright acknowledged meetings | Held: Denied — conclusory claim; record supports counsel’s reasonable communication |
| Whether prosecuting attorney had conflict requiring disqualification or counsel was ineffective for not pursuing it | Boatright: deputy prosecutor previously prepared his father’s will and had family knowledge/hostility that created conflict | State: prior probate work was unrelated; no conflict or prejudice; claim of prosecutorial error is trial error not cognizable in Rule 37.1 | Held: Denied — no cognizable Rule 37.1 claim; record shows no disqualifying conflict |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Williams v. State, 369 Ark. 104 (discusses deference to counsel and Strickland analysis in Arkansas)
- Howard v. State, 367 Ark. 18 (defines reasonable-probability prejudice standard under Strickland)
- Abernathy v. State, 2012 Ark. 59 (per curiam) (conclusory allegations of ineffective assistance insufficient for relief)