Mathis v. State, 2014 Ark. 148

In 2009 Mathis was convicted by a jury of simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, possession of a controlled substance (marijuana), and maintaining a drug premises (a motel room with Gwendolyn Miller).
He was sentenced as a habitual offender to 1344 months in prison; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed (Mathis v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 655).
Mathis filed a timely pro se postconviction petition under Rule 37.1 alleging due process violations and ineffective assistance of counsel.
The circuit court denied the petition; the Supreme Court reviews de novo for postconviction relief disputes, applying the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance claims.
The court analyzes whether trial counsel's performance fell below an objective standard and whether any deficient performance prejudiced the defense so as to undermine confidence in the outcome.
The appellate court upholds the circuit court’s denial, finding most claims conclusory, unpreserved, or not showing prejudice, and rejecting new arguments raised on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance of counsel standard	Mathis contends counsel failed to investigate and failed to obtain Ake evidence.	State argues claims are unpreserved and fail Strickland prejudice standard.	No reversible error; arguments were not preserved or failed Strickland prejudice.
Failure to request a simple possession instruction	Counsel should have requested a lesser-included offense instruction (simple possession).	Evidence did not establish merit for such an instruction.	No ineffective assistance; insufficient showing of merit or prejudice.
Motion to suppress motel-room evidence	Counsel should have moved to suppress evidence belonging to another person.	Grounds not properly raised or preserved; no meritorious basis shown.	Argument not preserved; no merit shown.
Due process/Criminal sentence and Eighth Amendment	Consecutive sentences and lengthy term violate due process and be cruel and unusual punishment.	Challenged grounds ignored; sentences within statutory range; judge had discretion.	Not a valid Rule 37.1 grounds for relief; sentences within range and properly imposed.
Accomplice corroboration and Miller testimony	Miller’s testimony should have been corroborated or challenged as accomplice testimony.	There was ample corroborating evidence independent of Miller.	Evidence sufficient; Miller’s testimony corroborated; no error in trial strategy.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Williams v. State, 369 Ark. 104 (Ark. 2007) (burden to overcome presumption of reasonable professional assistance)
Henington v. State, 403 S.W.3d 55 (Ark. 2012) (per curiam; standard for reviewing ineffective-assistance claims)
McCraney v. State, 360 S.W.3d 144 (Ark. 2010) (per curiam; Strickland framework application)
Abernathy v. State, 386 S.W.3d 477 (Ark. 2012) (defendant must show deficient performance fell below objective standard)
Davis v. State, 2011 Ark. 433 (Ark. 2011) (realistic probability of different outcome absent counsel errors)
Hatcher v. State, 2011 Ark. 325 (Ark. 2011) (merits of counsel’s arguments and potential prejudice)
Craigg v. State, 2014 Ark. 71 (Ark. 2014) (conclusory postconviction claims insufficient to prove ineffectiveness)
Green v. State, 2013 Ark. 455 (Ark. 2013) (postconviction relief limitations; sufficiency of evidence not cognizable)
Crain v. State, 2012 Ark. 412 (Ark. 2012) (direct-appeal sufficiency principles not cognizable in Rule 37.1)
Dodson v. State, 2013 Ark. 385 (Ark. 2013) (limits on raising new arguments on appeal from Rule 37.1 petition)
Hogan v. State, 2013 Ark. 223 (Ark. 2013) (preservation and scope of arguments in Rule 37.1 proceedings)
Jeffers v. State, 658 S.W.2d 869 (Ark. 1983) (conclusory postconviction claims insufficient)
Smith v. State, 352 Ark. 92 (Ark. 2003) (sentencing and procedural posture considerations)