Wells v. State
513 S.W.3d 834
Ark.2017Background
- In 2011 Wells was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and two terroristic-act counts; aggregate sentence 1,572 months; convictions affirmed on direct appeal (Wells v. State).
- In 2013 Wells filed an Act 1780 petition seeking postconviction DNA/scientific testing of a pair of Nike Shox shoes he alleged were not tested at trial; he later filed an amended petition in 2016.
- The trial court denied the petition, citing lack of timeliness/service and concluding no new scientific testing or evidence would entitle Wells to relief under the statute.
- Wells appealed the denial and requested an extension of time to file a complete record; the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as meritless and rendered the extension motion moot.
- The court found Wells identified the shoes for testing but failed to meet Act 1780/§16-112-202 predicate requirements: identity was not genuinely at issue, proposed testing would not support his defense or create a reasonable probability of innocence, and he had not rebutted timeliness presumptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / service of petition | Wells sought testing despite procedural defects; petition was filed and amended | State argued original and amended petitions were not properly served and were untimely | Court noted service/timeliness problems but dismissed appeal on merits; motion for extension moot |
| Statutory predicate for testing (identification, chain of custody, novelty of testing) | Wells identified the Nike Shox as evidence for testing and claimed they were never sent to lab | State argued other statutory prerequisites were unmet and evidence had to meet §16-112-202 requirements | Court found only identification satisfied; other §16-112-202 requirements not met |
| Whether identity of perpetrator was genuinely at issue | Wells argued testing could show he never wore/touched the shoes and prove actual innocence | State pointed to confession and trial evidence indicating identity was not in doubt | Court held identity was not at issue given Wells’s confession and trial theory; testing wouldn’t resolve identity question |
| Whether proposed testing would produce new material evidence raising reasonable probability of innocence | Wells claimed DNA testing (Act 2250) would establish innocence | State argued testing would not support Wells’s trial defense or overcome confession and jury inference of intent | Court held proposed testing would not produce new material evidence to support Wells’s defense or raise reasonable probability he did not commit the offense; denial not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. State, 493 S.W.3d 754 (Ark. 2016) (appeal of denied Act 1780 relief will not proceed when appellant cannot prevail)
- Wells v. State, 424 S.W.3d 378 (Ark. App. 2012) (summary of trial evidence and jury’s inference regarding intent)
- Clemons v. State, 446 S.W.3d 619 (Ark. 2014) (statutory requirements for postconviction testing under Act 1780)
- Leaks v. State, 268 S.W.3d 866 (Ark. 2007) (confession undermines claim that identity was at issue for postconviction testing)
- Pankau v. State, ? (Ark. 2013) (court’s standard describing when testing may be ordered)