Rea v. State
2016 Ark. 368
| Ark. | 2010Background
- Appellant Michael Eugene Rea was convicted by Saline County jury of four counts of computer exploitation of a child in the first degree and twenty counts of distributing, possessing, or viewing child pornography, receiving an aggregate sentence of 3720 months.
- This court affirmed the convictions and sentences; Rea later sought and was denied Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 postconviction relief.
- Rea filed pro se motions in the postconviction appeal for extension of time to file a brief, for certified copies of records, and to use 12-point typeface.
- The court dismissed the Rule 37.1 appeal as moot for lack of merit, making the extension/12-point-type motions moot as well.
- Rea argued ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, including suppression issues related to searches of a backpack and home, and a double-jeopardy claim under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-605; the court analyzed these claims under Strickland v. Washington and related Arkansas precedent.
- The court denied Rea’s requests for certified copies of records at public expense, concluding no compelling need was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge CD search | Rea lacked ownership of CDs; third-party search by private actor and police; standing required | Record shows abandonment and lack of privacy interest; no standing to challenge seizure | Rea lacked standing; no suppression error; counsel not ineffective |
| Probation/home-visit search validity | Probation officer's involvement and home visit were used to avoid probable cause/warrant | Home visit under probation surveillance is valid; consent to search supported lowering barriers | Probation search upheld; no ineffective-assistance merit |
| Double jeopardy under 5-27-605 | Multiple counts for same transaction/continuous conduct; app counsel should have challenged | Statute permits separate prosecutions for each image; no double jeopardy violation | Issue previously adjudicated; no new merit; appellate counsel not ineffective |
| Appellate counsel ineffective | Appellate counsel failed to develop meritorious issue on double jeopardy §5-27-605 | No meritorious issue identified; failure to raise conclusory issue not ineffective assistance | No ineffective assistance; appeal dismissed |
| Requests for certified copies at public expense | Need copies (incident reports and transcript) to prepare brief | No compelling need shown; copies denied | Denied; no compelling need shown; moot as appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Dixon v. State, 327 Ark. 105 (1997) (ownership/possession governs standing to challenge search)
- Wilson v. State, 297 Ark. 568 (1989) (personal Fourth Amendment rights; standing focus)
- Williams v. State, 321 Ark. 344 (1995) (special needs of probation/parole searches; reasonableness)
- Sims v. State, 2015 Ark. 363 (2015) (merits of ineffective-assistance claims; motion to suppress must have merit)