Evans v. State
2014 Ark. 6
| Ark. | 2014Background
- Cleveland Evans was convicted of premeditated capital murder and sentenced to life without parole; this court affirmed on direct appeal in Evans v. State.
- Evans filed a Rule 37 postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and simultaneously moved for leave to file an over-length petition or to amend, asserting the ten-page limit prevented adequate presentation.
- The circuit court denied the motion to file an enlarged petition and later denied the Rule 37 petition after an evidentiary hearing.
- On appeal of the Rule 37 denial, Evans argued (1) the circuit court erred by refusing to allow amendment/over-length filing (and by not appointing counsel) and (2) counsel was ineffective for failing to send casings/projectiles for ballistics testing.
- The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed: it held no entitlement to appointed counsel absent a substantial showing of entitlement to relief, the circuit court did not abuse discretion in enforcing the ten-page limit, and Evans failed to preserve or prove his ineffective-assistance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Evans) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by denying leave to file an over-length Rule 37 petition / amendment | Denial prevented adequate presentation of claims; requested counsel and more pages | Rule 37 limits are reasonable; leave to amend is discretionary; no absolute right to counsel in postconviction proceedings | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; Evans failed to state concise, fact-specific claims and did not show entitlement to counsel |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not sending casings/projectiles for ballistics testing | Testing would have supported defense theory that Evans was not present and could have produced favorable results | Claim was not raised in the Rule 37 petition (not preserved) and, on the merits, ballistics testing was irrelevant and not likely to change outcome | Court affirmed: issue not preserved; alternatively, claim lacks merit under prevailing ineffective-assistance standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. State, 378 S.W.3d 82 (Ark. 2011) (direct appeal affirming conviction and sentence)
- Sanders v. State, 98 S.W.3d 35 (Ark. 2003) (ten-page Rule 37 limit is a reasonable restriction)
- Washington v. State, 823 S.W.2d 900 (Ark. 1992) (due process does not require unlimited opportunity to present postconviction claims)