Gordon v. State, 470 S.W.3d 673

Gordon was convicted of capital murder and criminal attempt to commit capital murder for a murder-for-hire shooting that left one victim dead and another wounded; he received life without parole plus life, with firearm and child-presence enhancements.
Gordon admitted involvement; defense conceded the shootings but sought to reduce culpability to first- or second-degree murder rather than capital murder.
Evidence included Gordon’s recorded statement confessing role, Wal‑Mart surveillance and phone records linking him to the alleged hirer (Danny Brown), payment and vehicle transfer, and identifications by the victim and her nephew.
Danny Brown (the alleged hirer) was not prosecuted; charges against him were nolle prossed. At trial Martin (victim) had since married Brown.
Counsel filed a Rule 4-3(k) Anders no-merit brief and sought to withdraw; Gordon filed pro se points asserting Miranda/waiver, Brady, ineffective assistance, and limits on examination of the victim.
The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the record, found no preservable or meritorious errors, affirmed the convictions, and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Gordon)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Admissibility of post‑invocation statement	Gordon: statement taken after he invoked right to remain silent; interrogation reinitiated	State: no contemporaneous objection at trial; statement was admitted without objection	Not preserved for appeal; no relief granted
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Gordon: counsel failed to object to use of Danny Brown as underlying felon and failed to introduce/examine witness Quentin Jones	State: IAC claims not raised below; cannot be considered on direct appeal	Not preserved for appeal; court refused to consider on direct appeal
Limitation on defense examination of victim	Gordon: court improperly limited defense’s direct examination of Edwina Martin	State: defense was allowed multiple questions; excluded marital detail irrelevant to guilt	No reversible error; trial court acted within discretion
Brady violation for undisclosed information (Martin/Brown marriage)	Gordon: prosecution withheld facts (victim’s marriage to Brown) that would show bias and prejudice	State: defense not shown any specific, material evidence withheld	No Brady violation; defendant failed to identify withheld material or resulting prejudice

Mezquita v. State, 354 Ark. 433 (preservation requires contemporaneous objection)
Ratchford v. State, 357 Ark. 27 (IAC claims generally not considered on direct appeal unless raised below)
Cloird v. State, 357 Ark. 446 (Brady three‑prong test explained)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedure for counsel filing no‑merit brief and seeking withdrawal)