Mardis v. State
2017 Ark. App. 233
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mardis was charged with aggravated residential burglary, residential burglary, and possession of a firearm by a certain person, and identified as a habitual offender.
- He pled guilty to two counts of residential burglary and possession of a firearm after a plea hearing and was sentenced to 30 years as a habitual offender.
- At plea, the court and counsel clarified that there was no guaranteed time off and Mardis might serve the full sentence.
- In March 2016, Mardis filed a Rule 37.1 postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and requesting a hearing.
- The trial court denied the Rule 37 petition without an evidentiary hearing; the denial was later affirmed on appeal.
- The court applied Strickland and Hill standards, holding that, given the guilty plea, Mardis could not show prejudice from counsel’s alleged deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of Rule 37 petition without a hearing was error. | Mardis argues trial court erred in denying without a hearing. | State contends record shows no merit and no hearing required. | No reversible error; no hearing required. |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for misrepresenting parole eligibility. | Mardis claims counsel told him he would be eligible for parole after one-third of the sentence. | State contends counsel explained uncertainty and no time-off was guaranteed. | Not established; no prejudice shown due to guilty plea. |
| Whether counsel’s investigation inadequate before the plea affected voluntariness. | Mardis asserts counsel failed to adequately investigate before plea. | State asserts no failure that caused prejudice and plea was knowingly entered. | Not proven; plea knowingly and intelligently entered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mason v. State, 430 S.W.3d 759 (Ark. 2013) (appellate standard for reviewing Rule 37.1 decisions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes performance and prejudice prongs)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (requires showing prejudice for guilty-plea claims)
- Mancia v. State, 459 S.W.3d 259 (Ark. 2015) (trial court may deny without an evidentiary hearing if no merit)
- Bienemy v. State, 403 S.W.3d 55 (Ark. 2011) (procedural framework for Rule 37 relief without hearing)
- Carter v. State, 29 S.W.3d 716 (Ark. 2000) (absence of merit supports affirmance without detailed order)
- Scott v. State, 406 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2012) (requires correlation between counsel deficiency and plea decision)
- Jamett v. State, 358 S.W.3d 874 (Ark. 2010) (prejudice shown in guilty-plea context is difficult)
- Anderson v. State, 385 S.W.3d 783 (Ark. 2011) (standard for ineffective-assistance claims in postconviction)
- Henington v. State, 403 S.W.3d 55 (Ark. 2012) (procedural review of Rule 37 petitions)