Ward v. State, 2015 Ark. 325

Background

Terry Lee Ward was convicted in 2006 of raping an 11-year-old and sentenced to life; this Court previously affirmed the conviction.
Ward filed a verified Rule 37.1 postconviction petition in 2007; an evidentiary hearing was held in 2014 with counsel present.
At the Rule 37.1 hearing the court required Ward to choose representation or have counsel speak for him; Ward disrupted proceedings, was removed from the courtroom, and refused to state whether he wished to testify.
The trial court denied Ward’s Rule 37.1 petition (the sole claim below: ineffective assistance for failure to properly proffer/present evidence under the rape-shield statute).
On appeal, counsel sought to withdraw and was relieved; Ward then filed numerous pro se motions raising many new issues and seeking additional records, reinvestment of jurisdiction, and extensions.
The Court resolved Ward’s motions, limited review to the single issue presented below, granted a 40‑day extension to file his brief, and denied the other motions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether this Court should reinvest jurisdiction in trial court to decide omitted issues	Ward: trial court failed to rule on many postconviction matters; ask reinvestment	State: once the record is lodged this Court gains jurisdiction; trial court loses authority to rule further	Denied — due process does not require reinvestment; trial court lost jurisdiction when record lodged (Roberts).
Whether Ward may raise new claims / direct‑attack issues (e.g., sufficiency, Brady) in Rule 37.1 proceedings or by motions on appeal	Ward: alleges discovery/Brady violations, trial errors, bias, and seeks to add evidence	State: Rule 37.1 is not a vehicle for direct attacks or for adding new evidence; issues not raised below are not cognizable now	Denied — Rule 37.1 limited to issues raised below; sufficiency and unraised issues must be brought at trial or on direct appeal (Cotton; Davis; Reed).
Whether the appellate record should be expanded or additional documents (ADC records, videotapes) produced to Ward	Ward: needs records/videotapes and other documents to pursue appeal and to show counsel/notary misconduct	State: Ward has not shown missing or pertinent material that was considered by trial court or entitlement to additional production	Denied — no showing that relevant material was omitted from the record or that Rule 37.1 entitles him to new production; requests for prosecution of counsel/notary unsupported.
Procedural accommodations: waiver of notarization and extensions for filing brief	Ward: ADC impedes notarization; requests leave to file unverified motions and extensions until motions resolved	State: Court practice requires verification; other incarcerated litigants obtain notarization; extension request tied to meritless motions	Court denied waiver of notarization; granted limited extension (40 days from opinion) and provided copy of record for brief preparation, subject to return.

Key Cases Cited

Ward v. State, 370 Ark. 398, 260 S.W.3d 292 (Ark. 2007) (affirming Ward's conviction)
Ward v. State, 369 Ark. 313, 253 S.W.3d 927 (Ark. 2007) (addressing sealing and record access)
Hamilton v. State, 348 Ark. 532, 74 S.W.3d 615 (Ark. 2002) (no right to hybrid representation)
Monts v. Lessenberry, 305 Ark. 202, 806 S.W.2d 379 (Ark. 1991) (no hybrid representation)
Cotton v. State, 293 Ark. 338, 738 S.W.2d 90 (Ark. 1987) (sufficiency challenges are direct attacks)
Davis v. State, 345 Ark. 161, 44 S.W.3d 726 (Ark. 2001) (Rule 37.1 does not allow adding evidence to the record)
Roberts v. State, 2011 Ark. 502, 385 S.W.3d 792 (Ark. 2011) (trial court loses jurisdiction once record lodged on appeal)
Reed v. State, 375 Ark. 277, 289 S.W.3d 921 (Ark. 2008) (Rule 37.1 not substitute for direct appeal except for void judgments)
Wilmoth v. State, 369 Ark. 346, 255 S.W.3d 419 (Ark. 2007) (Rule 60 not available to obtain relief in criminal Rule 37 context)
McArty v. State, 364 Ark. 517, 221 S.W.3d 332 (Ark. 2006) (limitations on civil remedies in criminal cases)
Henderson v. State, 287 Ark. 346, 699 S.W.2d 397 (Ark. 1985) (indigency does not entitle automatic appellate record at public expense)