Thompson v. State, 2016 Ark. 333

John D. Thompson was convicted by a jury in 2014 of first-degree murder of his wife and sentenced to 480 months; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
Thompson filed a timely pro se Rule 37.1 petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel on multiple grounds.
Alleged errors included: prosecutor allegedly saying the word “rigor” in violation of a pretrial agreement (heard only by Thompson), failure to object to alleged speedy-trial violations (trial held 439 days after arrest), surprise amendment of the information six days before trial (capital charge reduced to first-degree murder), failure to investigate/exploit exculpatory leads (missing phone, other suspects), and failure to call a defense medical expert or secure co-counsel.
The trial court denied relief after concluding Thompson’s claims lacked factual substantiation or demonstrated prejudice.
Thompson appealed; the Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the denial under the Strickland ineffective-assistance standard and affirmed.

Issue	Thompson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Prosecutor’s use of the word "rigor"	Prosecutor violated pretrial agreement; counsel should have objected	No evidence the word was actually used; remark was unreported; no prejudice shown	Denied — claim conclusory and unsupported; no reversible error
Speedy-trial violation / jurisdiction	Trial occurred 439 days after arrest; counsel should have objected; court lacked jurisdiction	Multiple continuances were granted and properly excluded; not jurisdictional; claim is trial error absent showing counsel’s meritorious objection	Denied — timeline and exclusions showed no violation; speedy-trial is not jurisdictional
Amendment of the information shortly before trial	Surprise amendment prevented adequate preparation; counsel ineffective for not objecting	Amendment reduced charge (to Thompson's advantage) and did not unfairly surprise; no prejudice	Denied — amendment favorable; Thompson offered no factual basis showing prejudice
Failure to investigate/call expert witnesses	Counsel failed to discover exculpatory evidence (missing phone, other leads) and failed to secure defense medical expert	Allegations are speculative; petitioner must identify specific missing evidence or witness testimony and show prejudice	Denied — conclusory questions not factual proof of prejudice; no showing omitted testimony would change outcome

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Henington v. State, 403 S.W.3d 55 (Ark. 2012) (totality of evidence and presumption counsel effective)
Carter v. State, 460 S.W.3d 781 (Ark. 2015) (conclusory allegations insufficient to show prejudice from amendment)
Adams v. State, 427 S.W.3d 63 (Ark. 2013) (petitioner must substantiate omitted-witness testimony and prejudice)
Turner v. State, 486 S.W.3d 757 (Ark. 2016) (application of speedy-trial rules and exclusions)
Van Winkle v. State, 486 S.W.3d 778 (Ark. 2016) (actual-innocence claims and Rule 37.1 limitations)

Affirmed.