Ellis v. State
2014 Ark. 24
| Ark. | 2014Background
- In 2009 Richard Ellis was convicted by a jury of first-degree domestic battering and sentenced as a habitual offender to 480 months’ imprisonment; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Ellis filed a timely, verified pro se Rule 37.1 petition for postconviction relief in Pulaski County, asserting multiple grounds including ineffective assistance of counsel and challenge to habitual-offender sentencing.
- The trial court denied the Rule 37.1 petition without a hearing; Ellis appealed pro se to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
- Key factual dispute at trial: victim (Ellis’s brother Kenneth) suffered a life-threatening head injury allegedly from being struck with a microwave; witness Phillip Stoopes testified about statements by Ellis and refused to assist him.
- At trial Stoopes, on cross-examination, said his life was at stake; Ellis claims counsel should have objected and moved for mistrial.
- Ellis also contended that counsel and the State misled the jury about parole eligibility; trial court found no prejudice from counsel’s failure to object.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ellis) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Right to appointed counsel on Rule 37.1 petition | Trial court should have appointed counsel to represent Ellis on his postconviction petition | No absolute right to counsel in civil postconviction proceedings; Ellis did not make substantial showing of meritorious claim or need | Denied — appointment not required; Ellis failed to show entitlement |
| 2. Challenge to habitual-offender enhancement | Sentence improperly enhanced by habitual-offender status | Challenge is trial error that should have been raised at trial or on direct appeal, not in Rule 37.1 | Not cognizable on Rule 37.1 — claim barred as available on direct appeal |
| 3. Ineffective assistance: failure to object/move for mistrial after Stoopes’s comment | Counsel’s failure to object to Stoopes’s “life at stake” remark and to move for mistrial prejudiced defense | Counsel’s questioning and decisions were trial strategy; no showing strategy was unreasonable or that mistrial was warranted | Denied — appellant did not show counsel’s performance fell below Strickland standard or resulting prejudice |
| 4. Ineffective assistance: failure to object to State’s parole-eligibility remarks | Counsel failed to object to misleading parade about parole eligibility, prejudicing jury and sentence | The State’s remarks were proper; Ellis’s claims are conclusory and lack the record support required to show prejudice | Denied — conclusory allegations insufficient to overcome presumption counsel was effective |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims: deficient performance and prejudice)