Flemons v. State
2016 Ark. 460
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Aaron Flemons was convicted in 2012 of three counts of delivery of cocaine and one count of delivery of a counterfeit substance and sentenced to an aggregate 552 months; separate 2012 convictions for fleeing apprehension and leaving the scene produced a consecutive 360‑month sentence.
- Flemons filed timely pro se Rule 37.1 postconviction petitions (and amendments) challenging both judgments; the matters were consolidated, heard, and the trial court denied relief.
- At the Rule 37 hearing Flemons sought continuances, appointment of counsel, and trial transcripts; he argued lack of diligence was excused by mistaken clerk instructions and relied on Martinez/Trevino to demand counsel.
- Flemons alleged multiple ineffective‑assistance claims: failure to investigate drug‑task‑force procedures and the CI search, failure to pursue an entrapment defense, failure to challenge prosecutorial Brady issues, failure to object to visible restraints/jail clothing, failure to investigate mental‑health mitigation, and appellate counsel inefficiency on sufficiency claims.
- The trial court found lack of diligence for continuance requests; no entitlement to appointed counsel under Arkansas law; no compelling need shown for free transcripts; trial counsel’s choices were strategic and reasonable; Flemons failed to plead facts to support Brady or prejudice under Strickland; Rule 37 relief denied and appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion for continuance | Clerk gave wrong information about subpoenas; delay justified | Flemons lacked diligence; hearing date set after prior continuances | Denial affirmed — appellant failed to show diligence or prejudice |
| Appointment of counsel for Rule 37 | Martinez/Trevino require counsel in collateral proceedings | Arkansas law does not impose Martinez/Trevino rule; appointment is discretionary | Denial affirmed — no substantial showing of meritorious claim |
| Provision of trial transcripts | Indigency required free copies to prepare Rule 37 claims | Must show compelling need tied to specific allegations | Denial affirmed — no specific compelling need pleaded |
| Ineffective assistance (investigation/search & CI) | Counsel failed to obtain policies/interview Napier; would have impeached CI | Counsel thoroughly cross‑examined; no showing different outcome | Denial affirmed — no reasonable probability of different result |
| Ineffective assistance (entrapment defense) | Counsel should have requested instruction/pursued entrapment | Counsel made strategic choice to pursue innocence defense | Denial affirmed — strategy reasonable; no prejudice shown |
| Brady/prosecutorial‑misconduct claim | Prosecutor withheld Napier personnel file; fundamental constitutional error | Direct‑appeal issues not cognizable on Rule 37; claims conclusory | Denial affirmed — claim not cognizable and allegations were conclusory |
| Restraints/jail clothing before jury | Counsel failed to timely object and request cautionary instruction | Flemons refused civilian clothes; counsel objected; court gave instruction | Denial affirmed — no prejudice and Flemons’ conduct contributed |
| Failure to investigate mental health/mitigation | Counsel should have developed and presented impulse‑control evidence | Claim not preserved for Rule 37; counsel investigated and made strategy call | Denial affirmed — amendment/ruling not preserved; strategy reasonable |
| Appellate counsel on sufficiency | Appellate counsel failed to raise directed‑verdict sufficiency argument | The preserved sufficiency argument would have failed on the merits | Denial affirmed — claim without merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (tolling/ineffective‑assistance-initial‑review counsel rule discussed)
- Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (extension of Martinez principles)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutorial obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Thomas v. State, 370 Ark. 70 (diligence and continuance standards)
- Green v. State, 386 S.W.3d 413 (abuse‑of‑discretion review for continuances)
- Henington v. State, 403 S.W.3d 55 (conclusory allegations insufficient to overcome presumption of effective counsel)
- Van Winkle v. State, 486 S.W.3d 778 (strategic decisions by counsel not basis for Rule 37 relief)