Vaughn v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 241

Vaughn was convicted of possession of firearms by certain persons and sentenced as a habitual offender to 40 years.
During sentencing, the State introduced two subsequent untried felonies: firearm possession and methamphetamine delivery.
Vaughn argued these charges were not relevant and violated his right to remain silent; the trial court denied the motion in limine but did not rule on constitutional claims.
On direct appeal, this court held the evidence was relevant to punishment; Vaughn then filed a Rule 37.1 postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
An evidentiary hearing was held; trial counsel testified he thought he argued constitutional concerns but could not confirm a ruling was obtained.
The circuit court denied postconviction relief; the appellate court affirmed, applying Strickland and reviewing for clear error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was trial counsel ineffective for not obtaining a ruling on constitutional challenges to sentencing evidence?	Vaughn argues counsel failed to preserve constitutional objections.	Vaughn's counsel contends he argued due-process concerns, but a ruling on those issues was not established.	No reversible error; no clear prejudice shown.
Did Vaughn suffer prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance under Strickland?	Prejudice because evidence was prejudicial and undermined defense.	Even excluding the challenged evidence, other properly admitted evidence supported the sentence; no prejudice shown.	Not established; prejudice not proven.
Is Walls v. State applicable to this postconviction claim?	Walls supports exclusion due-process concerns over uncharged crimes.	Walls is not controlling; the prior result in direct appeal supports relevance of evidence.	Inapplicable; evidence remained legally permissible for sentencing.
Was the postconviction denial proper under Rule 37.1 standards?	Failure to develop constitutional claims warrants relief.	petitioner failed to articulate and prove constitutional deficiencies or prejudice.	Affirmed; denial proper under Strickland and Adams/Anthony standards.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. (1984)) (establishes two-prong framework for ineffective assistance)
Conley v. State, 433 S.W.3d 234 (Ark. 2014) (overarching standard for reviewing ineffective assistance claims in Arkansas)
Walls v. State, 336 Ark. 490 (Ark. 1999) (due-process concerns when trial counsel cannot prepare against uncharged crimes)
Adams v. State, 2013 Ark. 174 (Ark. 2013) (failure to fully develop issues precludes consideration)
Anthony v. State, 2014 Ark. 195 (Ark. 2014) (preference for fully developed Rule 37 arguments)
Thomas v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 466 (Ark. App. 2012) (evidence of other acts during sentencing and relevance standards)
Brown v. State, — (—) (cited in context of sentencing evidence and relevance)
Crawford v. State, — (—) (cited in sentencing evidence discussion)
Barnes v. State, 2017 Ark. 76 (Ark. 2017) (footnote-based jurisdictional note in postconviction appeal)