Craigg v. State, 2014 Ark. 71

Background

Anthony O. Craigg was convicted by a jury of rape (oral sex with a 14-year-old who was allegedly asleep and physically helpless) and sentenced as a habitual offender to life without parole; conviction was previously affirmed on direct appeal.
Craigg filed a timely, verified pro se Rule 37.1 postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel; the trial court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief.
Craigg filed an appeal and moved for appointment of counsel, a stay, and reinvestment of jurisdiction in the trial court to address issues he asserted were omitted from the Rule 37.1 order.
The trial court had previously allowed an evidentiary hearing despite Craigg filing an amended petition without leave; Craigg also filed motions requesting rulings on omitted issues around the time he filed his notice of appeal.
The Supreme Court of Arkansas held Craigg failed to follow procedural rules for securing rulings on omitted issues before appeal, declined to reinvest jurisdiction, found the appeal would not succeed on the merits, dismissed the appeal, and denied/denied-as-moot the motions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Craigg)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether this court should reinvest jurisdiction in trial court to consider issues allegedly omitted from Rule 37.1 order	Trial court omitted issues; reinvest jurisdiction so trial court will rule	Craigg failed to obtain rulings before appealing and did not follow procedure; motions were filed improperly after notice of appeal	Denied — Craigg should have sought timely rulings or amended his notice after rulings; no reinvestment
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and obtain transcript of prior Oklahoma conviction	Counsel should have gotten transcript and used it to exclude or limit prior-conviction evidence; move for mistrial when introduced	No specific facts showed transcript would have produced a different outcome; claim conclusory	Denied — no factual showing of prejudice under Strickland
Whether counsel failed to interview prospective witnesses/prepare, causing prejudicial testimony (detective’s emotional testimony re: Asperger syndrome)	Counsel did not interview witnesses; would have known testimony was irrelevant and prepared objections	Counsel did object, moved for mistrial and directed verdict; petitioner did not show what interviews would have produced or resulting prejudice	Denied — no factual showing that fuller investigation would have changed result
Whether counsel should have objected/moved for mistrial to counselor’s testimony that victim had Asperger syndrome	Testimony was improper because witness did not diagnose and there was no foundation	No basis shown to exclude testimony; counsel did challenge testimony at trial	Denied — conclusory; no prejudice shown
Whether counsel acted improperly regarding appellant’s choice not to testify and for allegedly incomplete closing argument	Counsel made him state before jury he chose not to testify; counsel failed to finish closing	Trial record shows appellant personally agreed outside jury that he chose not to testify; counsel withdrew an ill-advised remark and completed closing	Denied — record refutes claim; no prejudice shown

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
Williams v. State, 369 Ark. 104, 251 S.W.3d 290 (2007) (presumption counsel’s conduct falls within professional norms)
Henington v. State, 2012 Ark. 181, 403 S.W.3d 55 (presumption of reasonable professional judgment; burden on appellant to identify specific errors)
McCraney v. State, 2010 Ark. 96, 360 S.W.3d 144 (per curiam) (standards for showing ineffective assistance)
Howard v. State, 367 Ark. 18, 238 S.W.3d 24 (2006) (reasonable-probability prejudice standard; outcome includes sentencing)
Smith v. State, 2010 Ark. 137, 361 S.W.3d 840 (per curiam) (claims without specific showing of error are insufficient in Rule 37.1 proceedings)