Paige v. State, 2013 Ark. 432

Paige, pro se, appealed a Rule 37.1 postconviction denial after pleading nolo contendere to first‑degree battery with habitual offender status.
He received 132 months and a 72‑month term was suspended; a charge for aggravated residential burglary was not prosecuted under the plea.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the Rule 37.1 petition and denied relief.
Paige sought appointment of counsel and a stay; the Supreme Court reviews under Rule 37 and Rule 1‑2(a)(8).
The court applies a clearly erroneous standard to postconviction rulings, citing Pankau, Banks, and Sartin.
The appeal argued ineffective assistance of counsel on two grounds: misadvising habitual offender status and failure to warn about parole eligibility under Act 1805.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance—habitual-offender status	Paige argues counsel misled him about habitual offender consequences.	Paige failed to show counsel misled him; he understood the plea terms.	No error; no ineffective assistance shown.
Ineffective assistance—parole eligibility under Act 1805	Paige contends counsel failed to advise he would be parole-ineligible under Act 1805.	Parole eligibility advice is not constitutionally required and counsel’s conduct falls within reasonable professional standards.	No error; failure to advise on parole did not constitute ineffective assistance.
Plea validity and sentencing information	Paige contends the plea was not intelligent/voluntary due to misinformation about sentencing.	No misrepresentations about sentence length; plea was voluntary.	Plea was intelligent and voluntary; affirmance of conviction.

Pankau v. State, 2013 Ark. 162 (Ark. 2013) (clearly erroneous standard for postconviction rulings)
Banks v. State, 2013 Ark. 147 (Ark. 2013) (clearly erroneous standard for postconviction rulings)
Sartin v. State, 2012 Ark. 155, 400 S.W.3d 494 (Ark. 2012) (standard for ineffective-assistance review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance)
Harrison v. State, 2012 Ark. 198, 404 S.W.3d 830 (Ark. 2012) (strong presumption of reasonable defense conduct)
Buchheit v. State, 339 Ark. 481, 6 S.W.3d 109 (Ark. 1999) (non‑advisement on parole eligibility not per se ineffective)
Hill v. Lockhart, 894 F.2d 1009 (8th Cir. 1990) (parole advice not always required)
Olivarez v. State, 2012 Ark. 24 (Ark. 2012) (distinction in parole-related claims in counsel advice)
Smith v. State, 300 Ark. 291, 778 S.W.2d 924 (Ark. 1989) (court did not require parole‑eligibility explanation by court)