Walden v. State
2016 Ark. 306
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Larry Walden was convicted by a jury in 2011 of aggravated robbery in Sebastian County and sentenced as a habitual offender to 720 months; conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Walden filed a timely Rule 37.1 petition alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance by trial counsel Timothy Sharum; the trial court denied relief, this Court remanded for a Rule 37.3(a) compliant order, and the trial court again denied relief after an evidentiary hearing.
- Core facts: Walden handed a teller a bag with a note claiming he had a gun and demanding money; teller testified she gave money because of an implied threat and Walden’s “menacing scowl.”
- Major contested points at the Rule 37.1 hearing: (1) counsel failed to proffer a lesser-included robbery instruction; (2) counsel allegedly advised or failed to prevent Walden’s guilty pleas in federal court, resulting in habitual-offender treatment; (3) counsel prevented Walden from testifying; (4) counsel failed to object to a security-photo and alleged prosecutorial misstatement; (5) alleged conflicts of interest; (6) denial of appointed counsel for the Rule 37.1 hearing.
- The trial court found counsel’s strategic choices reasonable, Walden failed to show prejudice under Strickland, there was no actual conflict, and appointment of counsel was not required; this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Walden's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to proffer lesser-included robbery instruction | Sharum was ineffective for not proffering robbery instruction; juries could have convicted of lesser offense | Evidence conclusively supported aggravated robbery; no prejudice from omission | Court: No ineffective assistance; instruction not required when evidence conclusively shows aggravated robbery |
| Counsel’s role in federal guilty pleas / habitual-offender status | Sharum advised or failed to prevent federal pleas, causing Arkansas habitual-offender sentence | Sharum had no authority over federal counsel; Walden admitted Sharum did not expressly advise guilty pleas | Court: No duty to advise on federal plea; no ineffective assistance shown |
| Preventing defendant from testifying | Sharum refused to let Walden testify; violated right to testify | Counsel discussed decision with Walden; Walden confirmed he would not testify; no clear record of desire to testify or specific testimony showing prejudice | Court: No ineffective assistance; defendant waived right or failed to show prejudice or what his testimony would be |
| Failure to object to security-photo / alleged prosecutorial misstatement | Photo was mischaracterized as "lunging" and should have been objected to | Trial transcript contains no such prosecutorial statement; objection would lack merit | Court: No basis for ineffective assistance; counsel not ineffective for failing to make meritless objections |
| Failure to challenge teller’s "menacing look" testimony | Witness could not see eyes (Walden wore sunglasses); counsel should have impeached description | Counsel cross-examined teller; tactical decisions on cross-exam are within wide professional discretion | Court: No ineffective assistance; no showing of prejudice; sufficiency claim not cognizable via Rule 37.1 ineffective-assistance claim |
| Right to appointed counsel at Rule 37.1 hearing | Martinez requires appointment of counsel for postconviction proceedings | Rule 37.3(b) allows discretionary appointment; no absolute right; Walden did not show meritorious claim to compel appointment | Court: No abuse of discretion in declining appointment; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987) (defendant’s right to testify at trial)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (limited circumstances for counsel in initial-review collateral proceedings)
- Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002) (actual conflict of interest standard)
- Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (1983) (Sixth Amendment does not guarantee a meaningful relationship producing a successful defense)