Dodge v. State, 2014 Ark. 116

Dodge was convicted by a jury of three counts of rape and one count of attempted rape of a minor, with an aggregate sentence of 1152 months.
On direct appeal, he challenged the denial of a suppression motion based on his right to counsel; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
Dodge later filed a pro se Rule 37.1 postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance and various trial errors; the circuit court denied relief without a hearing.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that the record shows Dodge could not prevail on appeal from a postconviction denial; the motions for record and extension were moot.
The court reviewed the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance and concluded Dodge failed to show deficient performance or prejudice under the totality of the circumstances.
Key issues included sufficiency of information, the effect of amendments to the information, and whether specific alleged deficiencies amounted to reversible error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance for challenging the information	Dodge argued information/particulars were defective and needed challenge.	State contends information was sufficient and defense lacked merit to object.	No ineffective assistance; information sufficient; no prejudice shown.
Effect of second amended information timing	Second amendment extended dates and prejudiced defense; required continuance.	Amendment did not change nature/degree or create unfair surprise; no prejudice shown.	Amendment permissible; no reversible prejudice; counsel not ineffective.
Cumulative arguments of trial errors (penetration evidence, suppression motions, and right to testify)	Counsel failed to pursue suppression and improperly prevented testimony.	Counsel filed suppression motions and legitimate decisions followed; no prejudice.	No ineffective assistance; suppression motions litigated; coercion argument rejected.
Double jeopardy and multiple rape convictions	Three rape counts could constitute double jeopardy due to lack of distinct elements.	Counts reflect separate acts; not the same offense duplicity.	Not a double-jeopardy violation; convictions upheld as distinct offenses.
Coerced-confession/voluntariness of statement as postconviction issue	Statement obtained coercively; should have been suppressed.	Motions to suppress were pursued; record supports voluntariness; no merit for Rule 37.1 relief.	Coerced-confession claim rejected; not a basis for Rule 37.1 relief.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Holliday v. State, 2013 Ark. 47 (Ark. 2013) (appeal from postconviction relief not allowed where no success shown)
Bates v. State, 2012 Ark. 394 (Ark. 2012) (per curiam; standard for postconviction relief without merit)
Martin v. State, 2012 Ark. 312 (Ark. 2012) (per curiam; postconviction relief standards)
Taylor v. State, 2013 Ark. 146 (Ark. 2013) (standard for reviewing ineffective assistance under Strickland)
Anderson v. State, 2013 Ark. 332 (Ark. 2013) (information sufficiency and bill of particulars requirements)
Norris v. State, 2013 Ark. 205 (Ark. 2013) (when information is definite, bill of particulars not required)
Green v. State, 2012 Ark. 19 (Ark. 2012) (amendment of information and prejudice considerations)
Jordan v. State, 2013 Ark. 469 (Ark. 2013) (ineffective assistance claims require meritorious arguments)
Hale v. State, 2011 Ark. 476 (Ark. 2011) (burden to show actual prejudice from not testifying)
Howard v. State, 367 Ark. 18 (Ark. 2006) (due-process and trial-error framework for postconviction claims)
Norris v. State, 2014 Ark. 28 (Ark. 2014) (trial-error vs. fundamental error distinctions in postconviction)