Douglas v. State, 540 S.W.3d 685

Courtney Jerrel Douglas was convicted by a Union County jury of first-degree murder and firearm-possession; sentenced to life plus additional consecutive terms. Postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37 was denied without an evidentiary hearing.
Facts: After a verbal altercation at Douglas’s home, the victim, Terrance Billings, left. Douglas retrieved a handgun, went to Billings’s house, and shot Billings in the doorway; witnesses placed Douglas at the scene and described a scuffle on the porch before the shooting.
At trial Douglas asserted justification (self-defense) and presented evidence suggesting Billings had the initial physical advantage (headlock) during a porch scuffle.
Trial counsel submitted a justification instruction for non-deadly force (AMI Crim. 2d 704) rather than the deadly-force instruction (AMI Crim. 2d 705); counsel also did not request an instruction on extreme-emotional-disturbance manslaughter.
The circuit court denied the Rule 37 petition in writing as to the justification instruction (finding no rational basis for deadly-force instruction), but gave only a one-sentence adoption of the State’s response regarding the extreme-emotional-disturbance-manslaughter-instruction claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Douglas)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to tender the deadly-force justification instruction (AMI Crim. 2d 705)	Counsel should have requested AMI 2d 705 because evidence (Douglas’s statement and John Henry’s testimony) suggested Billings initiated physical attack, justifying deadly-force instruction	No rational basis for the instruction: initial confrontation had ended, Douglas armed himself, went to victim’s house, so self-defense by deadly force was not legally available	Affirmed: no ineffective assistance — no rational basis for instruction and no prejudice under Strickland/Berghuis
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to tender an extreme-emotional-disturbance manslaughter instruction	Counsel should have requested the EED manslaughter instruction; failure prejudiced Douglas	The State argued denial was proper; details relied on by circuit court in its response	Reversed and remanded: circuit court failed to make required written findings under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.3(a); remand for findings or an evidentiary hearing

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (prejudice from omitted jury instruction judged in light of all evidence)
Kemp v. State, 347 Ark. 52 (counsel not ineffective for failing to pursue meritless instruction or motion)
Sims v. State, 2015 Ark. 363 (discussing instruction-prejudice standard referencing Berghuis)
Wooten v. State, 338 Ark. 691 (Rule 37: hearing required unless files conclusively show no relief)
Reed v. State, 375 Ark. 277 (affirmance without Rule 37.3 findings only when petition is wholly without merit or conclusively so on its face)