Harris v. State
2017 Ark. App. 381
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Leslie John Harris was tried and convicted by a Clark County jury of criminal use of a prohibited weapon, two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, and simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms; he pleaded nolo contendere to possession of a firearm by certain persons in a negotiated plea. Sentences were imposed totaling concurrent and consecutive terms, and direct appeal was affirmed.
- Harris filed a Rule 37 petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (IAC) on two grounds: (1) counsel failed to move for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct (a juror allegedly had an intimate relationship with Harris’s ex-wife), and (2) counsel failed to ensure his nolo contendere plea to the felon-in-possession charge was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. He also separately sought to void the plea as untimely entered/nonvoluntary.
- At the Rule 37 hearing, trial counsel Tim Beckham testified Harris mentioned the juror allegation moments before a sentencing hearing and Beckham found it not credible and received no corroborating information; Harris identified the juror and claimed two sources informed him, but offered no corroborating evidence and the jail visitor log did not show the alleged visit from his ex-wife.
- The circuit court denied relief after a December 10, 2015 hearing and entered an order February 3, 2016. The court found the juror-misconduct claim conclusory and meritless, and found the plea was voluntary and that counsel’s performance regarding the plea did not fall below objective reasonableness.
- On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed the Rule 37 denial under Strickland analysis for IAC and Rule 37.2(c)(i) timeliness for challenges to pleas; it affirmed denial as to the jury-trial convictions and dismissed the plea-related portion for lack of jurisdiction because the Rule 37 petition attacking the plea was filed more than ninety days after the judgment entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a new trial based on juror misconduct | Harris: a juror had an undisclosed intimate relationship with his ex-wife, which showed juror bias; counsel should have filed a posttrial motion | State/Beckham: allegation was raised too late, lacked corroboration, was not credible, and counsel reasonably declined to pursue a meritless motion | Court held claim conclusory; counsel not deficient for failing to file a meritless motion; claim denied |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure plea to felon-in-possession was knowing, voluntary, intelligent | Harris: Beckham failed to ensure plea met constitutional standards | State: plea record shows voluntary, and counsel’s performance was objectively reasonable | Court found no clear error in rejecting IAC claim regarding plea, but treated jurisdictional timeliness separately |
| Whether court could grant relief as to the nolo contendere plea despite counsel’s performance | Harris: plea should be set aside regardless of counsel because it was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily entered | State: petition attacking plea untimely under Rule 37.2(c)(i) | Court held plea-attack portion untimely (petition filed >90 days after judgment); circuit court lacked jurisdiction, so appellate court dismissed that portion |
| Whether appellate court should reverse Rule 37 denial | Harris: circuit court clearly erred on IAC and plea issues | State: circuit court’s factual findings supported; legal standards applied correctly; timeliness bars plea relief | Court affirmed denial in part (trial convictions) and dismissed in part (plea attack for lack of jurisdiction) |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test)
- Reed v. State, 2011 Ark. 115 (standard of review for Rule 37 denials; clearly erroneous test)
- Jackson v. State, 352 Ark. 359 (prejudice prong: reasonable probability sufficient to undermine confidence in outcome)
- Ussery v. State, 2014 Ark. 186 (Rule 37 time limits are jurisdictional; court lacks jurisdiction if untimely)
- Benton v. State, 325 Ark. 246 (Rule 37 timeliness and jurisdictional effect)