Moten v. State
2013 Ark. 503
| Ark. | 2013Background
- Robert Moten was convicted by bench trial in 2010 of first- and second-degree battery for stabbing/cutting two victims and sentenced to an aggregate 264 months; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Moten filed a timely pro se Rule 37.1 petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and constitutional violations; the circuit court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing.
- Moten argued counsel failed to challenge an arrest-warrant/affidavit (allegedly unsigned/false), failed to subpoena six police officers, and failed to move to dismiss for speedy-trial violations.
- The circuit court found counsel had addressed witness subpoenas on the record and that Moten had chosen to proceed without subpoenas; it also found delays were attributable to Moten’s continuance requests and failure to appear.
- The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed whether the circuit court clearly erred under the Strickland standard and Rule 37.3 and affirmed the denial of postconviction relief.
Issues
| Issue | Moten's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of arrest warrant / counsel’s failure to challenge it | Warrant/affidavit was unsigned, unverified, contained false statements (knife), so counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress | Challenge to a warrant is not cognizable on Rule 37; Moten did not show any trial evidence was obtained from the warrant or that a suppression motion would have succeeded | Denied — counsel’s failure to challenge warrant produced no cognizable prejudice; invalid arrest alone does not vitiate conviction |
| Failure to subpoena six police officers | Officers would have shown a false arrest or contradicted affidavit knife allegation; counsel ineffective for not subpoenaing them | Counsel explained decision on record; Moten waived subpoenas; officers’ testimony would have been cumulative (victims already testified they did not see a knife) | Denied — no prejudice shown; testimony would have been cumulative and Moten had elected to proceed |
| Failure to move to dismiss for speedy-trial violation | Delay from arrest (July 3, 2007) to trial (March 9, 2010) exceeded Rule 28.1 limits; counsel ineffective for not moving to dismiss | Much of the delay (729 days) was tolled for continuances requested by Moten or his absence; motion would have been meritless | Denied — delays were excluded under the rules, so no meritorious speedy-trial motion and no ineffective assistance |
| Other constitutional claims / prosecutorial misconduct | Warrant perjured; prosecutor knew lack of probable cause; denial of fair trial | These are trial-error claims that must be raised at trial or on direct appeal and are not cognizable in Rule 37.1 | Denied — claims are not cognizable on collateral review under Rule 37.1 |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Dansby v. State, 347 Ark. 674, 66 S.W.3d 585 (Ark. 2002) (counsel’s performance judged against objective standard of reasonableness)
- Abernathy v. State, 2012 Ark. 59, 386 S.W.3d 477 (Ark. 2012) (reasonable-probability prejudice standard)
- Greene v. State, 356 Ark. 59, 146 S.W.3d 871 (Ark. 2004) (failure to make a meritless objection is not ineffective assistance)
- Biggers v. State, 317 Ark. 414, 878 S.W.2d 717 (Ark. 1994) (illegal arrest, standing alone, does not vitiate a valid conviction)