Savage v. State
2015 Ark. 212
| Ark. | 2015Background
- Jerry Dewayne Savage was convicted in 2012 of three counts of second-degree sexual assault and sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate 720 months’ imprisonment; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed on direct appeal.
- Savage filed a timely Rule 37.1 petition alleging multiple grounds for postconviction relief, principally ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and constitutional errors; the trial court denied the petition without a hearing and issued written findings.
- Savage’s ineffective-assistance claims included: failure to investigate or call witnesses about mental impairment after a drug overdose and competency, failure to retain or present an independent mental-health expert, failure to move for change of venue, permitting Savage to testify, failure to pursue a statute-of-limitations dismissal, and failure to investigate impeachment materials.
- Savage also asserted independent claims: Brady/prosecutorial misconduct (allowing perjured testimony and withholding documents) and that the trial court erred in finding him competent to stand trial.
- The trial court relied on two expert evaluation reports finding Savage competent and on the record showing he knowingly chose to testify and to reject an insanity-defense theory; it concluded Savage failed to show prejudice or factual support for his claims and denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate/call witnesses about mental condition and competency | Savage: counsel should have called witnesses who would show confusion, disorientation, and post-overdose impairment relevant to competency | State: existing expert evaluations found competency; proffered lay testimony would not have undermined those expert conclusions or shown incompetence at trial | Court: No prejudice shown; testimony would not have altered competency finding; counsel not ineffective |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to retain/produce independent mental-health expert | Savage: counsel misled court about retaining an expert and failed to present independent expert testimony on competency/insanity | State: counsel abandoned insanity defense at Savage’s insistence; existing expert reports found competency; Savage offered no factual support that another expert would help | Court: No factual showing of prejudice; no ineffective assistance |
| Ineffective assistance — statute of limitations / failure to move to dismiss | Savage: victim’s mother (a deputy) observed conduct earlier and her failure to report equates to a report, so limitations ran | State: mere suspicion by a non-reporting witness (even a law-enforcement employee) is not a report; tolling provision applies until victim turned 18 | Court: No merit to statute-of-limitations theory; counsel not ineffective for failing to raise it |
| Brady/prosecutorial-misconduct and competency challenge | Savage: prosecution allowed perjured testimony and withheld documents; trial court erroneously found competency | State: alleged inconsistencies do not establish perjury or withheld exculpatory evidence; competency evaluations and record were consistent with competence | Court: Allegations were conclusory and not factually substantiated; no Brady or due-process violation; competency finding affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established two‑prong ineffective‑assistance test)
- Decay v. State, 441 S.W.3d 899 (Ark. 2014) (appellate standard for reviewing Rule 37.1 denials; clearly erroneous standard)
- Sherman v. State, 448 S.W.3d 704 (Ark. 2014) (benchmarks for assessing whether counsel’s conduct undermined the adversarial process)
- Wertz v. State, 434 S.W.3d 895 (Ark. 2014) (reciting Strickland standards)
- Stewart v. State, 443 S.W.3d 538 (Ark. 2014) (presumption of reasonable professional judgment and burden to identify specific counsel acts)
- McNichols v. State, 448 S.W.3d 200 (Ark. 2014) (prejudice requires showing counsel could have presented specific admissible testimony)
- Howard v. State, 238 S.W.3d 24 (Ark. 2006) (prejudice includes sentencing impact and not only guilt/innocence)