Mardis v. State
2017 Ark. App. 404
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In Dec. 2015, Jerrime Wade Mardis was charged with aggravated residential burglary, residential burglary, and possession of a firearm; later pled guilty to two counts of residential burglary and one firearm count.
- At plea hearing, Mardis asked counsel how much of a 30-year term he would serve; counsel said he did not know and the court and prosecutor warned there was no guarantee of any reduction or parole.
- Mardis was sentenced as a habitual offender to concurrent terms: 30 years (residential burglary counts) and 20 years (firearm), each without parole.
- Mardis filed a motion to withdraw his plea and a Rule 37.1 petition claiming ineffective assistance (counsel misadvised parole eligibility and failed to investigate) and that his plea was not voluntary; he requested an evidentiary hearing.
- The trial court denied the motion and petition without an evidentiary hearing; Mardis appealed the denial.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed denial of Rule 37 relief (no prejudice shown), but sua sponte found the habitual-offender enhancement under §5-4-501(d) inapplicable and modified the sentence by removing the no-parole portion while affirming the terms as within §5-4-501(a) ranges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mardis) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying Rule 37 petition without evidentiary hearing | Counsel misadvised him about parole eligibility and failed to investigate; plea not voluntary — therefore ineffective assistance and hearing required | Record (plea colloquy, plea form, counsel’s affidavit) conclusively shows no merit; Mardis admitted counsel said he did not know parole; no prejudice alleged | Affirmed: no hearing required because petition was conclusively without merit on the record |
| Whether Mardis received ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland/Hill during plea | Counsel’s alleged statement that Mardis would be eligible for parole after one-third of sentence induced plea | Counsel denies misadvice; court and prosecutor repeatedly warned Mardis he may serve full sentence; plea form initialed acknowledging possible full-term service | Denied: no deficient-prejudice showing; Mardis did not allege he would have gone to trial absent the advice |
| Whether sentence was illegal due to habitual-offender enhancement (no-parole) | Sentence imposed without parole under §5-4-501(d) applicable | Court and parties mistakenly applied §5-4-501(d); convictions were for residential burglary which are not "felonies involving violence" in subsection (d)(2) | Modified: removed illegal no-parole enhancement under (d); affirmed sentence lengths as lawful under §5-4-501(a) |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance + prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (Strickland prejudice test applies to guilty-plea challenges; must show reasonable probability would have gone to trial)