462 S.W.3d 638
Ark.2015Background
- Isom seeks recall of this court's mandate in his Rule 37/postconviction case after Isom II/III rulings (death-penalty context).
- Petition argues that postconviction counsel were impaired by substance abuse/personal crises and conflicts affected representation.
- Alleges trial counsel and postconviction counsel failed to investigate social history, mitigation, and other meritorious claims.
- Argues conflict of interest in investigators/attorneys and failure to amend the petition to add claims raised at trial.
- Court denies recall; notes recall is extremely narrow and that issues are not ripe or arising from the appellate process breakdown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lambert's alleged impairment warrants recalling the mandate | Isom asserts Lambert was impaired. | State contends no appellate-process breakdown shown. | Not warranted; no record error during 2010 appeal. |
| Whether Green/Bunch conflict constitutes breakdown of process | Isom claims disabling conflict affected representation. | No actual conflict shown to affect outcome. | Conflict not proven; recall denied. |
| Whether Rosenzweig failed to investigate social history | Failure to gather social-history evidence violated norms. | Allegations of ineffective assistance not errors by this court. | Not a ground for recall; safeguards exist against expanding relief. |
| Whether Rosenzweig should have amended petition to include new claims | Two meritorious claims for IAC should have been added. | Trial court was not obligated to permit amendment. | Not a basis to recall mandate. |
| Whether photo lineup issues or prosecutorial misconduct warrant recall | Lineup issues and misconduct could undermine conviction. | Issues already reviewed; not remanded for new review. | Waived/rejected; not a recall-ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. State, 367 Ark. 84 (2006) (recall standard and impairment considerations in postconviction)
- Hill v. State, 263 Ark. 478 (1978) (conflict-of-interest on appointment of counsel)
- Nooner v. State, 2014 Ark. 296 (Ark. 2014) (extraordinary circumstances; breakdown in appellate process)
- Ward v. State, 2015 Ark. 62 (Ark. 2015) (recall remedy is extremely narrow; limits on IAC claims)