Mardis v. State
2017 Ark. App. 433
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Jerrime Wade Mardis was charged with aggravated residential burglary, residential burglary, and possession of a firearm; he was identified as a habitual offender.
- Mardis accepted a plea and was sentenced as a habitual offender to concurrent terms: thirty years without parole on burglary counts and twenty years without parole on the firearm count.
- At plea hearing, the court, prosecutor, and defense counsel each told Mardis there was no assurance of receiving time off and that he might have to serve the full sentence; Mardis signed the written plea and initialed the clause acknowledging no promises about early release.
- Mardis filed a motion to withdraw his plea and a Rule 37.1 petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (counsel told him he would be eligible for parole after one-third of the sentence; counsel failed to investigate) and that his plea was not intelligent/voluntary.
- Trial counsel denied the allegation about parole advice and moved to withdraw; the trial court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing.
- On appeal, Mardis argued the court erred by denying the Rule 37 petition without a hearing; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for allegedly telling Mardis he'd be eligible for parole after one-third of sentence | Mardis: counsel told him he would serve one-third and that misinformation induced the plea | State: record shows counsel denied giving that promise; court and prosecutor warned Mardis he may serve the full term and plea form disclaimed promises | Held: No; record conclusively shows no deficient advice and no prejudice shown |
| Whether counsel failed to investigate prior to plea | Mardis: counsel inadequately investigated facts/penalty exposure | State: allegations conclusory and unsupported by the record | Held: No; petition was without merit on its face |
| Whether plea was not knowing/voluntary (due process) | Mardis: plea was not intelligent/voluntary because of counsel's alleged misinformation | State: Mardis acknowledged understanding at plea colloquy and initialed written waiver of promises | Held: No; plea was knowing and voluntary |
| Whether trial court erred by denying Rule 37 relief without an evidentiary hearing | Mardis: denial without hearing prevented development of factual dispute about counsel's advice | State: record conclusively refutes claim; court may deny without hearing when petition is clearly without merit | Held: No error; denial without hearing was proper because record conclusively showed petition had no merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (Strickland prejudice test applied to guilty-plea challenges; must show reasonable probability petitioner would have gone to trial)
- Mason v. State, 430 S.W.3d 759 (standard of review for denial of Rule 37 relief)
- Mancia v. State, 459 S.W.3d 259 (trial court may deny evidentiary hearing where petition is conclusively without merit on the record)
- Jamett v. State, 358 S.W.3d 874 (difficulty of proving prejudice after guilty plea because of admissions at plea hearing)