Sartin v. State
2012 Ark. 155
| Ark. | 2012Background
- Sartin was convicted by a Pulaski County jury of aggravated robbery and felony theft of property and sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive terms of 240 and 120 months.
- On direct appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, with the sole point being sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated robbery.
- After direct appeal, Sartin filed a Rule 37.1 petition for postconviction relief; the circuit court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing.
- The circuit court ruled on two grounds: (1) ineffective assistance for not pursuing a theft-only defense; (2) ineffective assistance for not honoring Sartin’s purported request to testify.
- The supreme court reviews postconviction denials for clear error and applies the Strickland two-prong standard to ineffective-assistance claims.
- The court ultimately affirms the circuit court’s denial of postconviction relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for defense theory choice | Sartin argues trial counsel should have pursued theft-only defense. | State argues defense strategy was sound and supported by investigation. | No reversible error; strategy supported by professional judgment. |
| Ineffective assistance for not honoring right to testify | Sartin alleged he asked to testify and counsel failed to record a waiver. | Record shows no affirmative request to testify; waiver implied by silence. | No ineffective assistance; no on-record waiver required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 385 S.W.3d 237 (Ark. 2011) (no on-record waiver required; ineffective-assistance claim rejected)
- Montgomery v. State, 385 S.W.3d 189 (Ark. 2011) (clearly erroneous standard; Strickland two-prong review)
- Anderson v. State, 385 S.W.3d 783 (Ark. 2011) (trial-strategy decisions insulated from Rule 37 relief)
- Flowers v. State, 370 S.W.3d 228 (Ark. 2010) (trial-strategy decisions not proper basis for relief)
- Goodman v. State, 2011 Ark. 438 (Ark. 2011) (Rule 37 relief does not allow reargument of direct appeal issues)
- United States v. Kamerud, 326 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2003) (right to testify waiver considerations cited by court)
- United States v. Blum, 65 F.3d 1436 (8th Cir. 1995) (right to testify waiver considerations cited by court)