Ward v. State.3, 455 S.W.3d 830

Background

Bruce Earl Ward was convicted of capital murder and, after multiple sentencing proceedings and appeals, was sentenced to death; his Rule 37.5 postconviction petition was denied by the circuit court and that denial was affirmed by this Court in Ward IV.
Ward moves to recall the mandate from Ward IV raising three grounds: (1) his Rule 37.5 petition was unverified; (2) he was incompetent during the postconviction proceedings; and (3) postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to raise mental-competency/mental-health issues.
The Court explains that recalling a mandate is an extraordinary remedy and considers whether there was a defect or breakdown in the appellate process (with guidance from precedents like Roberts and Robbins).
The majority finds no breakdown: the Court reviewed Ward’s postconviction claims despite the unverified petition (thus Ward received the process he would have gotten via remand), Ward did not waive postconviction rights so Roberts (competency-to-waive analysis) is inapposite, and ordinary ineffective-assistance claims do not justify mandate recall.
The Court overrules Wooten to the extent it treated lack of verification alone as a breakdown warranting recall; it distinguishes Collins (where numerous procedural failures left no petition actually adjudicated) and limits recall to extraordinary circumstances like counsel impairment in Lee I.
Three justices dissent, arguing the Court should adhere to Wooten and prior rulings treating verification as jurisdictional in Rule 37 matters, and thus should recall the mandate for Ward (who faces the death penalty).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ward)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Standard for recalling mandate	Court should recall mandate for defects/breakdown in appellate process in death cases	Recall is extraordinary; factors guide but are not rigid; review limited to true breakdowns	Recall is narrow; Ward failed to show extraordinary circumstances to justify recall
Verification of Rule 37.5 petition	Unverified petition is a defect; Wooten supports recall/remand to verify	Remedy is remand to permit verification or moot because Court already reviewed appeal	Court finds no breakdown since it reviewed the appeal despite lack of verification; overrules Wooten to the extent it treats verification alone as sufficient for recall
Competency during Rule 37.5 proceedings	Ward was incompetent at the postconviction hearing, which undermines proceedings	Roberts (competency-to-waive) differs: Ward did not waive rights and court had no duty to make competency finding here	Court rejects this ground: Roberts is inapplicable because Ward did not waive rights and no mandatory competency finding was required
Ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel	Counsel failed to raise competency/mental-health issues and seek independent expert	State: ordinary ineffective-assistance claims do not amount to breakdown warranting recall	Court will not recall mandate for ordinary postconviction counsel ineffectiveness; only extraordinary impairment (e.g., intoxication in Lee I) justifies recall

Key Cases Cited

Ward v. State, 308 Ark. 415, 827 S.W.2d 110 (1992) (affirming conviction; sentencing error reversed)
Ward v. State, 321 Ark. 659, 906 S.W.2d 685 (1995) (sentencing error reversed due to court-reporter error)
Ward v. State, 338 Ark. 619, 1 S.W.3d 1 (1999) (affirming death sentence after third sentencing)
Ward v. State, 350 Ark. 69, 84 S.W.3d 863 (2002) (Ward IV — affirmed denial of Rule 37.5 relief)
Wooten v. State, 2010 Ark. 467, 370 S.W.3d 475 (2010) (held lack of verification supported recall/remand; overruled here in part)
Collins v. State, 365 Ark. 411, 231 S.W.3d 717 (2006) (procedural breakdown where no compliant petition was ever adjudicated)
Howard v. State, 366 Ark. 453, 236 S.W.3d 508 (2006) (remanded in death case to permit verification and supplement the record)
Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 57, 426 S.W.3d 372 (discusses competency-to-waive and mandate-recall factors)
Robbins v. State, 353 Ark. 556, 114 S.W.3d 217 (2003) (mandate recall and extraordinary-circumstances standard)
Lee v. State, 367 Ark. 84, 238 S.W.3d 52 (2006) (mandate recalled where postconviction counsel was intoxicated/impared)
Jackson v. State, 343 Ark. 613, 37 S.W.3d 595 (2001) (court has relaxed jurisdictional bars in capital cases for fundamental fairness)