Slater v. State
2017 Ark. App. 499
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Donnie Slater was charged with two counts of delivery of a controlled substance and two counts of use of a communication device; the State also alleged habitual-offender status and a proximity-to-daycare enhancement.
- After a jury trial, Slater was convicted on one delivery count and one communication-device count; the jury found the delivery occurred within 1000 feet of a daycare. He was sentenced to 20 years (delivery) and 10 years (device), to run consecutively, with a ten-year proximity enhancement applied.
- Slater appealed and this court affirmed; he then filed a timely Rule 37.1 petition asserting ten ineffective-assistance and related claims (many later amended or withdrawn). The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief on claims 1–9; one claim was withdrawn.
- On appeal from the Rule 37 denial, the Court of Appeals reviewed the circuit court’s factual findings for clear error and applied the Strickland two-prong standard for ineffective-assistance claims.
- The appellate court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief on the challenged claims, finding many allegations conclusory or strategic, and finding no prejudice under Strickland; the court ordered correction of a clerical error in the second amended sentencing order to reflect habitual-offender status.
Issues
| Issue | Slater's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel failed to investigate/prepare | Counsel did not adequately investigate evidence, informant background, or discuss trial strategy | Allegations are conclusory; no specific omitted facts shown; counsel’s preparation not rebutted | Denied — appellant’s claims were conclusory and failed Strickland |
| Failure to preserve substantial-evidence/directed-verdict | Counsel did not make a specific directed-verdict motion under Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1, waiving appellate review | Substantial evidence supported convictions; appellant failed to identify how a more specific motion would have merited reversal | Denied — either conclusory or no prejudice; substantial evidence supported verdict |
| Failure to object to habitual-offender evidence | Not charged as habitual offender; insufficient proof of priors | Information charged habitual-offender status; certified priors were available and reviewed by counsel; counsel reasonably declined futile objection | Denied — charged as habitual offender; counsel reviewed certified priors and strategy was reasonable |
| Illegal proximity enhancement / who imposes enhancement | Enhancement illegal because not charged; jury should impose enhancement | Proximity allegation was charged; evidence of proximity was presented to the jury | Denied — charged and supported by evidence; claim about jury vs court not preserved |
| Failure to object to admission of drugs and lab report (chain of custody) | Chemist did not testify; chain of custody and weight discrepancies required objection | Agent Russell established chain of custody and agreed lab report would be admitted; counsel’s agreement was trial strategy | Denied — strategic decision; chain of custody sufficiently proven; no prejudice |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for no-merit brief / failure to mail substituted brief | Anders brief inadequate; substituted brief not mailed to Slater | Court ordered rebriefing; substituted brief was filed; Slater received counsel and postconviction counsel later | Denied — no prejudice shown; Rule 37 counsel later represented Slater |
| Juror disclosures and failure to move for mistrial | Jurors referenced Slater’s criminal history; counsel should have moved for mistrial to secure impartial jury | Statements were general/ambiguous; counsel made strategic decision not to draw attention to them; juror acquitted on other counts | Denied — no prejudice and trial strategy reasonable |
| Agent Russell’s testimony (expert/authentication) | Russell not qualified to authenticate lab report or give expert testimony about drugs | Russell testified about investigation, handling, and experience; law enforcement testimony based on experience is admissible | Denied — testimony admissible; no ineffective assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Conley v. State, 433 S.W.3d 234 (Ark. 2014) (standard of review for Rule 37 proceedings and ineffective-assistance review)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (no-merit appellate brief procedure)
- Watson v. State, 444 S.W.3d 835 (Ark. 2014) (prejudice requirement under Strickland)
- Adams v. State, 427 S.W.3d 63 (Ark. 2013) (counsel not ineffective for failing to pursue futile objections)
- Guydon v. State, 39 S.W.3d 767 (Ark. 2001) (chain-of-custody sufficiency and admissibility of drug evidence)
- Pedraza v. State, 485 S.W.3d 686 (Ark. 2016) (limits on raising new issues on Rule 37 appeal)