Randle v. State
2016 Ark. 228
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Anthony Lamont Randle was convicted by a jury of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole; this court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Randle filed a timely Rule 37.1 postconviction petition raising ineffective-assistance claims (witness intoxication, lack of proof of premeditation, erroneous jury instructions, and failure to move in limine to exclude testimony).
- Randle’s Rule 37.1 petition was not verified and did not include the required sworn affidavit executed before a notary as mandated by Rule 37.1(c).
- Randle raised an additional claim (trial counsel ineffective for failing to appeal the trial court’s grant of the State’s motion in limine) only in a reply to the State’s response, not in the original petition and without seeking leave to amend.
- The trial court denied relief; Randle appealed from that denial. The State moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction (failure to verify) and alternatively moved for more time to file its brief.
- The Supreme Court of Arkansas found the petition unverified and the claim raised in the reply was not properly before the trial court (no leave to amend), and dismissed the appeal; the extension motion was rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Randle's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 37.1 petition complied with verification requirements | Randle proceeded with his petition and later attempted to assert additional argument in his reply | Petition lacked the required sworn, notarized affidavit under Rule 37.1(c); failure mandates dismissal under Rule 37.1(d) | Petition unverified; appeal dismissed |
| Whether the claim raised in Randle’s reply is properly before the court | Randle argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the motion in limine (raised in reply) | Claim was raised first in a reply and not in the original petition; no leave to amend sought, so it cannot be considered on appeal | Claim not considered below and cannot be raised for first time on appeal; additional basis for dismissal |
| Whether a court may treat a reply as an amended petition without leave | Randle implicitly relied on reply to present the new claim | Rule 37.2(e) permits amendment only with leave; original petition must present all grounds absent denial without prejudice | Reply cannot substitute for an amended petition filed with leave; claim barred |
| Whether the court should remand to allow verification in non-capital case | Randle implicitly sought consideration of his claims despite procedural defects | Only in unique death-penalty cases has the court remanded to allow verification | No remand here; dismissal appropriate (remand reserved for death-penalty cases only) |
Key Cases Cited
- Randle v. State, 372 Ark. 246, 273 S.W.3d 482 (Ark. 2008) (direct-appeal decision addressing related trial rulings)
- Ward v. State, 2015 Ark. 62, 455 S.W.3d 830 (Ark. 2015) (verification affidavit requirement and purpose explained)
- Boyle v. State, 362 Ark. 248, 208 S.W.3d 134 (Ark. 2005) (verification requirement prevents perjury)
- Croft v. State, 2010 Ark. 83 (Ark. 2010) (Rule 37.1 petitions not verified per Rule 37.1(c) are subject to dismissal)
- Butler v. State, 367 Ark. 318, 239 S.W.3d 514 (Ark. 2006) (issues raised first in reply not considered absent leave to amend)
- Howard v. State, 366 Ark. 453, 236 S.W.3d 508 (Ark. 2006) (remand to cure verification reserved for capital cases)