Henington v. State
2012 Ark. 181
| Ark. | 2012Background
- Henington appeals a circuit court ruling denying postconviction relief under Rule 37, Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure 2011.
- In May 2009, a Benton County jury convicted Henington of felony rape based on testimony from the victim, K.J., and a video-recorded interview; sentence was 36 years in the ADC.
- Appellant claimed trial counsel failed to file a rape-shield motion and to request an in camera hearing, and failed to investigate alternative sources of the victim’s prior sexual knowledge.
- Appellant alleged those failures would have unlocked prior sexual-conduct evidence and explanations for K.J.’s knowledge, potentially undermining the State’s case.
- The circuit court denied without an evidentiary hearing, finding the petition conclusory and lacking merit; it later issued written findings supporting denial.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court reviews Rule 37 denials for clear error under Strickland v. Washington; the State argues no prejudice and that allegations were conclusory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court properly denied a hearing | Henington | State | No error; no hearing required where record shows no merit |
| Whether Bennett's performance was deficient under Strickland | Henington | State | No deficiency; trial tactics supported, and evidence was elicited |
| Whether appellant showed prejudice from counsel's performance | Henington | State | No prejudice shown given lack of admissible or admissible-evidence basis |
| Whether the circuit court made sufficient written findings under Rule 37.3(a) | Henington | State | Findings sufficient and proper; reviewable on record |
| Whether the totality of the evidence compels reversal | Henington | State | Not warranted; decision affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance; prejudice required)
- Williams v. State, 369 Ark. 104 (2007) (clear-error standard for postconviction relief findings)
- Howard v. State, 367 Ark. 18 (2006) (definition of prejudicial effect and standard of review)
- Britt v. State, 2009 Ark. 569 (2009) (deficient-performance inquiry; presumption of effectiveness)
- Sykes v. State, 2011 Ark. 412 (2011) (counsel’s performance reviewed under Strickland; reasonable professional judgment)
- Sanders v. State, 352 Ark. 16 (2003) (Rule 37 hearing discretion and sufficiency of pleadings)
- Nance v. State, 339 Ark. 192 (1999) (conclusory allegations insufficient to support relief)
- Jackson v. State, 352 Ark. 359 (2003) (conclusory trials and evidentiary standards in Rule 37 petitions)