Lee v. State, 2017 Ark. 337

In 2009 Terry Antonio Lee threatened occupants of the Brown home and later fired eight shots toward the house; police recovered eight shell casings. Three witnesses identified Lee as the shooter; one bullet struck the window sill.
Lee was convicted of committing a terroristic act, criminal attempt to commit first-degree battery, and four counts of aggravated assault; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
Lee filed a pro se petition under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 raising ineffective-assistance claims and independent trial-errors, including a double-jeopardy challenge claiming the shootings were a single continuing offense.
The trial court held evidentiary hearings, found counsel’s directed-verdict motion deficient but not prejudicial, and rejected other claims; this Court granted a belated appeal and remanded for supplemental findings before final briefing.
On appeal Lee argued (inter alia) double jeopardy, incompetence to stand trial, improper intra-district transfer, discovery/prosecutorial misconduct, defective verdict forms, juror bias, and multiple ineffective-assistance theories (investigation, objections, juror strikes, strategy, directed-verdict preservation).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Double jeopardy	Multiple convictions should merge because the shootings were a single continuing course of conduct	Each shot was a distinct criminal act; separate charges permissible	No double jeopardy; six separate impulses/acts justified six convictions
Competency to stand trial	Trial court should have ordered further evaluation after Lee’s noncooperation and antisocial diagnosis	Two evaluations (after cooperation) concluded Lee competent; disorder alone doesn’t show incompetence	No abuse: sufficient evaluations showed competence; no fundamental error
Defective verdict forms	Terroristic-act and attempted-battery forms omitted a named victim and were defective	Instructions and statute for terroristic act do not require naming a victim; attempted-battery identified potential victims	No prejudicial fundamental error shown; forms not fatal
Ineffective assistance — directed-verdict preservation	Counsel failed to preserve sufficiency arguments for appeal	The alleged preserved arguments (identification, intent) were meritless given eyewitness IDs and circumstantial inference of intent	Counsel performance deemed deficient on form but Lee failed to show prejudice — no Strickland relief

Halpaine v. State, 2011 Ark. 517 (continuing offense test: single impulse vs. separate impulses)
McLennan v. State, 337 Ark. 83 (person may be tried for terroristic act for each shot fired)
Britt v. State, 261 Ark. 488 (robbery and battery not continuing offenses)
Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (competency to stand trial is required; defendant cannot waive right to competency determination)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
Ewell v. State, 375 Ark. 137 (unequivocal eyewitness identification suffices to sustain conviction)