Norris v. State
2013 Ark. 205
| Ark. | 2013Background
- In 2009 Norris was found guilty by a jury of capital murder, first-degree battery, and two counts of aggravated robbery; the court imposed a life-time aggregate sentence.
- This appeal concerns a timely postconviction Rule 37.1 petition filed pro se and denied by the trial court.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court applies a deference standard, reversing only if the circuit court’s ruling is clearly erroneous under Strickland’s two-prong test.
- Appellant argues ineffective assistance of trial counsel under Strickland, claiming failures related to the information, jury instructions, potential cross-count prejudice, and other trial conduct.
- The State contends the information was sufficiently definite, the jury instructions properly described offenses, and no prejudice or conflict of interest was demonstrated; the court denied relief after evaluating the totality of the evidence.
- The court ultimately affirmed the denial of postconviction relief, concluding no ineffective assistance or due process errors established grounds for relief
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the information and instructions violated due process or aided cross-count prejudice | Norris alleges duplicitous information; argues cross-count prejudice and improper robbery instruction | State contends information and instructions sufficiently definite; no prejudice shown | No error; information and instructions adequate; no dismissal or prejudice established |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to deputy prosecutor signing the information | Counsel should have challenged deputy’s signature as voidable | Deputy signing is voidable, not void; no prejudice shown | No deficient performance or prejudice shown; trial valid |
| Whether there was an actual conflict of interest due to counsel's relationship with prosecutor's office | Counsel's wife, an office manager, had potential influence; conflict prejudiced defense | Record shows no actual conflict or prejudice; relationship did not affect outcome | No proven actual conflict or prejudice; relief denied |
| Whether counsel's preparation deficiencies and failure to consult or obtain experts prejudiced the defense; whether a hearing was required | Counsel failed to prepare, research, consult co-defendants, or seek medical expert | Petition insufficient to prove a reasonable probability of different outcome; no hearing required | No prejudice shown; hearing not mandated; petition denied |
| Whether the failure to obtain a ruling on potential double jeopardy or multiple punishments was preserved | Appellant asserts multiple punishments for same offense | No ruling preserved on appeal; issue waived | Issue not preserved for review; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 369 Ark. 104, 251 S.W.3d 290 (2007) (Ark. 2007) (two-prong Strickland standard; strong presumption of effectiveness)
- Holloway v. State, 426 S.W.3d 462, 2013 Ark. 140 (Ark. 2013) (prejudice component requires reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Abernathy v. State, 386 S.W.3d 477, 2012 Ark. 59 (Ark. 2012) (defendant must show deficient performance and prejudice)
- Scott v. State, 406 S.W.3d 1, 2012 Ark. 199 (Ark. 2012) (direct attack on judgment; Rule 37.1 cannot be used for sufficiency challenges)