Lee v. State
2016 Ark. 464
Ark.2016Background
- Terry Antonio Lee was convicted of terrorism, attempted first-degree battery, and four counts of aggravated assault and sentenced to an aggregate 1,020 months; those convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Lee filed a timely pro se Rule 37.1 postconviction petition; after two hearings the trial court denied relief.
- This Court remanded for supplementation: to settle the record and for additional findings addressing Lee’s claim that trial counsel failed to make sufficient directed-verdict motions (Lee v. State, 2016 Ark. 293, 498 S.W.3d 283).
- The trial court filed a supplemental Rule 37 order and the supplemental record was lodged in this Court; Lee’s supplemental brief was then due in this Court.
- Lee filed a pro se motion for reversal and dismissal claiming the trial court failed to comply with the remand and alleging he had not received the supplemental order.
- The Supreme Court concluded the trial court had complied with the remand but that the circuit clerk had not promptly mailed a copy of the supplemental Rule 37 order to Lee as required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.3(d), impairing Lee’s ability to file a compliant supplemental brief.
Issues
| Issue | Lee's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court failed to comply with this Court’s remand | Trial court disobeyed remand by not filing required supplemental findings | Trial court did comply and filed supplemental findings of fact | Court held the trial court complied with the remand |
| Whether Lee was denied required notice of the supplemental Rule 37 order | Lee alleged he never received a copy and thus could not file a supplemental brief | State did not dispute that Lee lacked a copy or the mailing requirement | Court held Lee had not been mailed the supplemental order and remanded for compliance with Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.3(d) |
| Procedural consequence: whether reversal/dismissal was warranted | Lee sought reversal and dismissal based on alleged noncompliance | State opposed reversal/dismissal because remand compliance occurred | Court denied motion for reversal/dismissal; remanded to ensure mailing and set new briefing deadline |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. State, 498 S.W.3d 283 (Ark. 2016) (remand to settle the record and make additional findings on ineffective-assistance claim)
