Magness v. State
2015 Ark. 185
| Ark. | 2015Background
- John W. Magness was convicted by a jury (2011) of multiple offenses including four counts of fourth-degree sexual assault, possession of a firearm by a felon, two counts of fleeing, and resisting arrest; aggregate sentence 300 months; Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed on direct appeal.
- Magness filed a timely pro se Rule 37.1 petition alleging ineffective assistance by three attorneys, an unlawful search and seizure, and that the trial court’s Rule 37.3 findings were inadequate.
- The trial court held two hearings on the petition, considered pleadings and argument, and entered written findings denying relief.
- The issues raised included (1) trial counsel Ralph Blagg’s alleged concession about possession of a gun at a suppression hearing; (2) multiple complaints against trial counsel Mel Jackson (procedural errors, evidentiary failures, withdrawal, and Jackson’s suicide/mental state); (3) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel Jason Jouett for failing to raise a particular sufficiency argument; and (4) challenge to the search/admission of evidence and the cognizability of that challenge on Rule 37 review.
- The trial court found the petition insufficient under Strickland; this Court reviews Rule 37 denials for clear error and affirmed the denial and denied Magness’s motion for oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Ineffective assistance — Ralph Blagg’s remark conceding gun possession at suppression hearing | Blagg’s statement that Magness possessed the gun undermined effectiveness and prejudiced outcome | Statement was a reasonable strategic concession to establish standing at suppression hearing; Magness failed to show prejudice | Court: No prejudice shown; no relief granted |
| 2) Ineffective assistance — Mel Jackson’s conduct (stolen motion, leaving hearings, moving to withdraw, failure to object, causing pro se appeal, suicide/mental state) | Jackson’s various actions and mental state rendered assistance ineffective and prejudiced Magness | Record does not support many factual claims; where facts exist, Magness failed to show deficient performance or prejudice | Court: Claims unsupported or without prejudice; Strickland not satisfied; no relief |
| 3) Ineffective assistance — Appellate counsel Jason Jouett raised different argument on appeal than Magness desired | Jouett failed to raise a meritorious sufficiency issue on appeal | Issue Magness wanted raised was meritless; counsel not ineffective for omitting baseless claims | Court: Omission was of a meritless issue; no ineffective-assistance of appellate counsel |
| 4) Search and seizure / cognizability on Rule 37.1 | Search was warrantless/defective; evidence should be suppressed and Rule 37 review appropriate | Rule 37 is not a vehicle for ordinary trial error or evidentiary/admissibility challenges that were not raised at trial or on direct appeal | Court: Search/admission claim not cognizable on Rule 37; Rule 37.3 finds adequate; no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Magness v. State, 424 S.W.3d 395 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (direct-appeal decision in this matter)
- Watkins v. State, 362 S.W.3d 910 (Ark. 2010) (mandatory written findings under Rule 37.3(c))
- Taylor v. State, 427 S.W.3d 29 (Ark. 2013) (standard for prejudice and trial error not cognizable on collateral attack)
- Breeden v. State, 427 S.W.3d 5 (Ark. 2013) (victim’s testimony alone may support verdict)