Bradley v. State
2015 Ark. 144
| Ark. | 2015Background
- Tevin A. Bradley was convicted by a Pulaski County jury of capital felony murder and aggravated robbery (with firearm enhancements) for the death of Evon Henderson during a robbery; he received life without parole for murder and forty years for robbery.
- Bradley and co-defendant Veeders Nelson went to Henderson’s home to buy marijuana; Nelson admitted firing the shot that killed Evon; Bradley grabbed the marijuana and fled. Nelson pleaded to first-degree murder and received thirty years.
- Bradley filed a Rule 37.1 postconviction petition raising ineffective-assistance claims (failure to move for directed verdict on theft-of-contraband theory; failure to inform jury about mandatory life-without-parole sentencing during guilt phase).
- Bradley’s petition was signed and notarized but did not include the specific sworn affidavit/verification in substantially the form required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1(c).
- The circuit court denied the petition; on appeal the Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed Bradley’s appeal for failure to comply with Rule 37.1(c), citing the rule’s mandatory dismissal provision in subsection (d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not arguing directed verdict that theft of contraband cannot support theft/robbery convictions | Bradley: counsel should have argued contraband (marijuana) cannot be the subject of theft/robbery | State: (implicit) conviction valid under the evidence and law | Court did not reach merits — appeal dismissed for procedural noncompliance |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not informing jury that capital-felony conviction automatically results in life without parole (truth-in-sentencing) | Bradley: failure to inform jury of mandatory LWOP violated state truth-in-sentencing principles and ineffective assistance | State: (implicit) no need to address because procedural defect bars review | Court did not reach merits — appeal dismissed for procedural noncompliance |
| Whether failure to include Rule 37.1(c) verification deprives the court of jurisdiction and mandates dismissal sua sponte | Bradley: (not raised below) petition was notarized and should be considered on merits | Dissent/Bradley on appeal: verification is a procedural claim-processing rule, not subject-matter jurisdiction; it was not raised by State below and is waived | Majority: Rule 37.1(c) requires the specific sworn verification and Rule 37.1(d) mandates dismissal of any petition failing to comply; appeal dismissed |
| Whether the court should sua sponte raise verification when neither party did | Bradley/dissent: court should not raise non-jurisdictional procedural defects sua sponte; reach merits and overrule past cases treating verification as jurisdictional | Majority: Rule language is mandatory (“shall dismiss”), so dismissal is required even if not raised by parties | Court dismissed appeal; dissent would address merits and argues to overrule precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyle v. State, 362 Ark. 248 (Ark. 2005) (verification requirement and the need for petitioner to sign and execute the requisite affidavit)
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (U.S. 2004) (distinguishing true jurisdictional rules from mandatory claim-processing rules)
- J.W. Reynolds Lumber Co. v. Smackover State Bank, 310 Ark. 342 (Ark. 1992) (definition and limits of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Summerville v. Thrower, 369 Ark. 231 (Ark. 2007) (procedural rules as claim-processing steps under court rulemaking authority)