Carter v. State
2015 Ark. 166
| Ark. | 2015Background
- Brandon Carter was convicted by a jury in 2007 of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of first-degree battery and received an aggregate 1,200-month sentence; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Carter filed a timely pro se Rule 37.1 petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel; the trial court denied relief.
- Carter moved for modification/reconsideration arguing the trial court failed to rule on each claim; when the court did not rule, this Court issued mandamus directing the trial court to act.
- The State had originally charged aggravated robbery as to Travis Young (and later first-degree battery); two days before trial the State filed a second amended information adding an aggravated-robbery count as to Inez Young.
- Carter claimed counsel was ineffective for not moving to quash the late amendment or for a continuance, for not alleging prosecutorial intentional delay, and that the trial court erred in denying the petition without a hearing.
- The trial court denied relief on the substantive ineffective-assistance claims; Carter appealed but the Court limited review to issues addressed in the original denial order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to quash or for continuance after second amended information adding victim two days before trial | Carter: addition was unfair surprise, changed nature/degree of offense, impaired preparation | State/Trial court: affidavit and charging papers put defense on notice of two victims; amendment did not change nature/degree or create unfair surprise | Court: held counsel not ineffective; Carter failed to show factual basis for prejudice and the affidavit referenced both Travis and Inez Young |
| Whether counsel should have moved to dismiss based on prosecutorial intentional delay | Carter: prosecutor intentionally delayed second count for tactical advantage, violating state constitutional protection | State: claim conclusory and unsupported; burden on petitioner to plead facts showing prejudice | Court: denied—conclusory allegation without factual support insufficient to show ineffective assistance |
| Whether trial court erred in denying Rule 37.1 petition without evidentiary hearing or specifying record relied upon | Carter: trial court failed to show record conclusively supported denial and did not specify relied records | State: trial court supplemented original order on reconsideration and made written findings as required by Rule 37.3 | Court: held trial court complied with Rule 37.3 by making written findings and specifying parts of record relied on; no error |
| Scope of appeal — whether appellate review may consider claims first addressed in the modified order | Carter: sought to raise issues resolved in the modification/reconsideration order | State: Carter failed to amend notice of appeal to include modified order; may not raise claims first addressed there | Court: limited review to original order; issues raised only in modified order not considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Williams v. State, 369 Ark. 104 (2007) (applying Strickland standard in Arkansas)
- Abernathy v. State, 2012 Ark. 59 (2012) (presumption of reasonable professional judgment; claim must be factually supported)
- Henington v. State, 2012 Ark. 181 (2012) (defendant must identify specific acts/omissions showing unreasonable performance)