Guevara v. State
2014 Ark. 200
Ark.2014Background
- Osires Guevara was convicted by a Benton County jury of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment; conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Guevara filed a timely Rule 37 petition alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of counsel (conflict of interest, inadequate investigation, failure to advise re: plea offer and habitual-offender enhancement, failures in witness handling and evidentiary objections).
- The State filed a response attaching photocopied email exchanges between Guevara’s trial counsel and the deputy prosecutor, plus portions of pretrial and trial transcripts.
- The circuit court denied the Rule 37 petition without an evidentiary hearing, relying in part on the attached email correspondence to reject several ineffective-assistance claims.
- Guevara appealed, arguing (1) the denial without a hearing was improper because the files and record did not conclusively show no relief was warranted, and (2) the circuit court erred in considering extraneous email correspondence not part of the Rule 37 files/record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court properly relied on unsolicited emails attached to State’s response (extraneous evidence) | Guevara: emails were not part of the Rule 37 petition or court file and thus improper for summary denial | State: attachments to response become part of the file; argument not preserved and meritless | Court: emails were extraneous; circuit court erred in relying on them |
| Whether court may summarily deny Rule 37 petition without hearing when files/record do not conclusively show no relief | Guevara: files/record did not conclusively foreclose relief; hearing required | State: petition was subject to summary disposition; no hearing necessary | Court: denial without hearing was error because reliance on emails shows the record was not conclusive |
| Whether emails could substitute for sworn testimony in resolving disputed factual claims | Guevara: emails lack indicia of reliability of sworn, cross-examinable testimony | State: argued implicitly that attachments supported its factual claims | Court: emails are not equivalent to testimony; use was improper in lieu of an evidentiary hearing |
| Whether the circuit court made adequate written findings under Rule 37.3(a) when denying relief | Guevara: findings improperly based on extraneous material and insufficient to show petition was wholly without merit | State: contended petition lacked merit; no separate argument on findings | Court: because court relied on extraneous emails and did not show petition was conclusively without merit, summary denial and findings were erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Wooten v. State, 338 Ark. 691, 1 S.W.3d 8 (1999) (Rule 37.3 requires an evidentiary hearing unless files and record conclusively show no relief)
- Bohanan v. State, 327 Ark. 507, 939 S.W.2d 832 (1997) (per curiam) (standards for summary disposition under Rule 37)
- Poe v. State, 291 Ark. 79, 722 S.W.2d 576 (1987) (rules of evidence apply at postconviction proceedings; testimony must be under oath and subject to cross-examination)
- Lewis v. State, 251 Ark. 128, 471 S.W.2d 349 (1971) (testimony admissibility principles in postconviction context)
- Sanders v. State, 352 Ark. 16, 98 S.W.3d 35 (2003) (exceptions to reversal for failure to make written findings when petition is wholly without merit)
- Beshears v. State, 340 Ark. 70, 8 S.W.3d 32 (2000) (preservation rules for obtaining rulings before appeal)
- Hayes v. State, 2011 Ark. 327, 383 S.W.3d 824 (2011) (claims raised below but not pursued on appeal are abandoned)