Todd v. State
2017 Ark. App. 587
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Michael Todd was convicted by a Hempstead County jury of second-degree forgery, breaking or entering, and theft; commercial burglary conviction was reversed on direct appeal.
- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions on May 25, 2016; Supreme Court review was denied and mandate entered July 21, 2016.
- Todd, pro se and incarcerated, filed a Rule 37 petition on September 15, 2016, raising jurisdictional defects, a challenge to the prosecutor’s signature on the information, and multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.
- The trial court denied the petition without a hearing on grounds including untimeliness, jurisdiction retained, deputy prosecutor’s signature sufficient, and that counsel had moved for directed verdicts; it also included a blanket denial of other claims.
- Todd appealed, arguing (as best the court could discern) that the petition was timely, the trial court failed to make required written findings, and the court failed to address remaining ineffective-assistance claims.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial: it found the petition timely but concluded the other bases for denial were supported by the record or that the claims were meritless on their face.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Todd) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Rule 37 filing | Petition was timely filed (deposited in prison mail on Sept. 15) | Trial court ruled untimely | Court: Petition was timely under Rule 37.2(g); trial-court timeliness error harmless because other valid bases support denial |
| Trial court written findings under Rule 37.3 | Court failed to make required written findings; reversal required | Record shows claims are meritless or conclusively without merit | Court: Although some findings were omitted, record demonstrates petition is without merit; reversal not required |
| Personal and in rem jurisdiction defects | Trial court waived/obtained jurisdiction fraudulently; in rem jurisdiction should apply | In rem does not apply to criminal information; no record of waived personal jurisdiction | Court: Jurisdictional challenges meritless; in rem pertains to property actions only; personal jurisdiction retained |
| Efficacy of counsel (failure to investigate, subpoena plaintiff, object to jury instructions, directed-verdict timing) | Counsel failed to investigate signature, failed to subpoena Todd to testify, failed to object to amended jury instructions, and failed to move for directed verdict at correct times | Record shows deputy prosecutor signature valid; counsel moved for directed verdict at proper times; strategic choices and record foreclose other claims | Court: Claims fail. Deputy’s signature adequate; directed-verdict claim contradicted by record; failing to call Todd was strategic and would expose damaging prior statement; jury instructions matched model; no Strickland prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. State, 444 S.W.3d 835 (Ark. 2014) (standard for reversing denial of postconviction relief)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective‑assistance standard)
- Howard v. State, 238 S.W.3d 24 (Ark. 2006) (challenges to criminal information must be raised on direct appeal)
- Sweet v. State, 370 S.W.3d 510 (Ark. 2011) (sufficiency review views evidence in light most favorable to the State)
- Lemaster v. State, 459 S.W.3d 802 (Ark. 2015) (deference to counsel’s tactical and strategic decisions)