Sherman v. State, 2014 Ark. 474

Appellant Patrick L. Sherman, pro se, appeals two June 10, 2013 Rule 37.1 denials in Hot Spring County (Nos. 30CR-12-241 and 30CR-12-286).
In 2013 Sherman pled guilty to four felonies via negotiated plea: fleeing on foot, possession of methamphetamine, residential burglary, and robbery, and was sentenced as a habitual offender to 144 months’ imprisonment.
Sherman filed a verified pro se postconviction petition under Rule 37.1 asserting ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea negotiations.
An evidentiary hearing was held; Sherman sought relief on the basis that counsel’s performance during the plea was deficient and prejudicial.
The postconviction court evaluated under the Strickland two-prong test for ineffective assistance and determined no merit to the claims; the trial court’s denial was affirmed on appeal.
The majority concluded Sherman’s Rule 37.1 claims were without merit, noting the plea waived any challenge to guilt and that challenges to prior judgments and suppression motions lacked sufficient merit to succeed in postconviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Efficacy of counsel at plea (Strickland)	Sherman argues counsel’s handling rendered the plea unintelligent/ill-advised.	State asserts counsel’s actions were within reasonable professional judgment.	Denied; no prejudice shown; pleading guilty waived direct challenge to guilt.
Suppression/evidence grounds	Counsel should have moved to suppress evidence; would have altered outcome.	Lack of merit; no factual basis to suppress; unsigned statements insufficient.	Denied; failure to file suppression lacked merit under Strickland.
Prior convictions and habitual-offender status	Challenge to 1991/1995 judgments to defeat habitual-offender status.	No meritorious challenge; double jeopardy claim rejected; prior judgments valid.	Denied; no merit to attacking prior judgments or dual convictions.
Grand jury vs information charging	Absolute right to grand jury indictment.	Amendment 21 allows charging by information or indictment.	Denied; charging method proper under Amendment 21 and case law.

Conley v. State, 433 S.W.3d 234 (Ark. 2014) (two-prong Strickland standard; evaluation for ineffectiveness)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance)
Robinson v. State, 384 S.W.3d 508 (Ark. 2011) (plea-based ineffectiveness—prejudice must be shown)
Scott v. State, 406 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2012) (prejudice required in guilty-plea Rule 37.1 claims)
Ellis v. State, 2014 Ark. 24 (Ark. 2014) (Rule 37.1 limitations on challenging prior judgments)
Nickleson v. State, 427 S.W.3d 626 (Ark. 2013) (Rule 37.1 cannot raise sufficiency challenges as direct attacks on judgments)
Rowbottom v. State, 13 S.W.3d 904 (Ark. 2000) (fundamental double jeopardy claim in Rule 37.1)
Caery v. State, 386 S.W.3d 477 (Ark. 2012) (reiterates Strickland standard and presumption of effectiveness)
Sartin v. State, 400 S.W.3d 694 (Ark. 2012) (clarifies review standard for Rule 37.1 appeals)
Henington v. State, 403 S.W.3d 55 (Ark. 2012) (discusses burden to show deficient performance)
Moore v. State, 2014 Ark. 231 (Ark. 2014) (plea-based waiver of claims)