Holloway v. State
2017 Ark. 265
Ark.2017Background
- In March 2013 Holloway was charged with capital murder, firearm enhancement, and tampering; the capital-murder information was later amended to allege pecuniary gain and especially cruel/depraved manner.
- On May 2, 2014 Holloway pled guilty to first-degree murder and tampering in exchange for his truthful testimony against a codefendant; the court found the plea knowing, intelligent, and voluntary after colloquy.
- Holloway was sentenced to 420 months for first-degree murder and 72 months (concurrent) for tampering.
- On July 31, 2014 Holloway filed a Rule 37.1 postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance (failure to move to suppress phone evidence; misinformation about time to be served) and that he has a learning disability affecting comprehension.
- The circuit court held a Rule 37 hearing, received testimony from defense counsel (who described Holloway’s severe reading disability but asserted he understood proceedings and that counsel read plea documents aloud), and denied the Rule 37 petition; Holloway appealed.
- Holloway later filed coram nobis petitions alleging involuntary plea and misunderstanding about sentence; the State opposed; the circuit court denied those petitions. The Supreme Court granted a rule on clerk only as to the Rule 37 appeal and limited review accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Holloway received ineffective assistance of counsel on Rule 37 grounds | Ferguson failed to (1) move to suppress phone evidence and (2) properly advise Holloway about actual time to be served; counsel’s failures prejudiced Holloway | State showed counsel filed many pretrial motions, obtained or confirmed lawful phone search, and counsel properly advised and explained the plea; plea agreement acknowledged rights and waiver | Abandoned on appeal: Holloway did not brief these Rule 37 claims, so the circuit court’s denial is affirmed |
| Whether the Supreme Court should grant rule on clerk / allow appeal or remand for coram nobis | Holloway sought relief because transcript wasn’t timely filed by counsel and wanted his Rule 37 appeal docketed or, alternatively, to proceed in circuit court on coram nobis | State argued procedural posture and that plea waivers/acknowledgments bar belated claims; court examined motion substance | Court granted rule on clerk only as to the Rule 37 petition (limited scope); appeal is limited to denial of Rule 37 petition |
| Whether coram nobis claims (incompetence/ coerced plea) are reviewable in this appeal | Holloway argued plea was involuntary because of intellectual disability and that he was misled about time to be served | State noted plea colloquy, signed plea agreement acknowledging possible life sentence, and procedural posture limits review | Court declined to consider coram nobis claims on this appeal because its grant of rule on clerk covered only the Rule 37 denial; coram nobis arguments were not before this Court on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Slaton v. Slaton, 330 Ark. 287, 956 S.W.2d 150 (Ark. 1997) (motions should be liberally construed; courts look to substance over title)
- Cornett v. Prather, 293 Ark. 108, 737 S.W.2d 159 (Ark. 1987) (same principle regarding construction of motions)
- State v. Johnson, 374 Ark. 100, 286 S.W.3d 129 (Ark. 2008) (issues raised below but not argued on appeal are abandoned)
- Jordan v. State, 356 Ark. 248, 147 S.W.3d 691 (Ark. 2004) (abandonment of appellate issues that are not pursued in briefs)