Sandrelli v. State, 2016 Ark. 103

Robert Sandrelli was tried twice for four counts of rape; first trial ended in a hung jury, second trial resulted in convictions after the defense presented no witnesses and Sandrelli did not testify.
After appellate affirmance, Sandrelli filed a Rule 37 postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel with three main claims: (1) counsel was under emotional/professional stress; (2) counsel failed to call any witnesses in the second trial; and (3) counsel unilaterally decided Sandrelli would not testify.
The circuit court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, finding the stress allegation conclusory and treating the decisions about calling witnesses and defendant testimony as matter of trial strategy not warranting relief.
The appellate standard applied: Strickland’s two-prong test (deficient performance + prejudice) and Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.3 (hearing required unless record conclusively shows no relief).
The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed denial as to the stress allegation but held that the record did not conclusively show counsel’s strategic decisions (particularly failure to call witnesses) were supported by reasonable professional judgment or harmless; it reversed in part and remanded for a hearing on the failure-to-call-witnesses claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s alleged stress supports ineffective-assistance relief	Sandrelli: counsel’s resignation and stress impaired performance	State: allegation is conclusory and unsupported by facts	Denied — allegation conclusory; no hearing required
Whether counsel’s failure to call any witnesses was deficient	Sandrelli: no witnesses in second trial (contrasted with robust first-trial defense) shows deficient performance and possible prejudice	State: decision which witnesses to call is trial strategy and permissible	Reversed and remanded — record does not conclusively show strategic basis or lack of prejudice; hearing required
Whether counsel prevented Sandrelli from testifying (failure to consult)	Sandrelli: counsel unilaterally decided he would not testify, violating the defendant’s right to decide	State: decision whether defendant testifies is strategic/advisory	Not definitively resolved by majority; concurrence would remand for a hearing to resolve this claim
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.3	Sandrelli: record does not conclusively foreclose his claims; hearing needed	State: record shows he is entitled to no relief, so no hearing required	Mixed: hearing not required as to stress claim; required as to failure-to-call-witnesses claim (remanded)

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
Polivka v. State, 362 S.W.3d 918 (Ark.) (standard for reversing denial of postconviction relief)
State v. Barrett, 263 S.W.3d 542 (Ark.) (definition of "clearly erroneous")
Wooten v. State, 1 S.W.3d 8 (Ark.) (Rule 37.3 hearing requirement unless record conclusively shows no relief)
Henington v. State, 403 S.W.3d 55 (Ark.) (conclusory allegations insufficient for hearing)
Feuget v. State, 454 S.W.3d 734 (Ark.) (applying Strickland in Arkansas postconviction context)
Stiggers v. State, 433 S.W.3d 252 (Ark.) (calling witnesses is usually trial strategy requiring reasonable professional judgment)
Chenowith v. State, 19 S.W.3d 612 (Ark.) (defendant’s right to decide whether to testify)
Beverage v. State, 458 S.W.3d 243 (Ark.) (Rule 37.3 and need for hearing when record not conclusive)