Williams v. State, 2015 Ark. 466

Matthew Williams was convicted by a jury in Pike County of first-degree forgery for passing forged City of Nashville checks and sentenced to 480 months; Court of Appeals previously affirmed and remanded to reflect habitual-offender status.
Williams filed a timely pro se Rule 37.1 petition claiming ineffective assistance of pretrial and appellate counsel; the trial court denied relief after a hearing.
At trial Williams largely represented himself with appointed counsel acting as stand-by; he did not object when jury instructions were read and did object at trial that admitted checks were copies.
Key contested matters: (1) a jury instruction used the phrase “appears to be issued” rather than quoting the statute verbatim; (2) whether evidence established the checks were government-issued instruments; (3) admissibility of duplicate/copy checks (originals had been destroyed under bank policy); and (4) failure to call defense witness Chris Turner.
The Rule 37.1 court found counsel’s performance not deficient or, where performance was arguably deficient, that Williams failed to show prejudice under Strickland. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed and rendered the motion for rule on clerk moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury instruction wording ("appears to be issued")	Instruction deviated from statute; pretrial counsel ineffective for not objecting	Williams represented himself at trial and did not object; stand-by counsel reviewed instructions but Williams declined help	No relief — either Williams waived by self-representation or failed to show prejudice under Strickland
Sufficiency that checks were government-issued	Evidence insufficient to show checks were government instruments; claim appropriate for Rule 37.1	Sufficiency claims must be raised on direct appeal, not in Rule 37.1	Dismissed — cannot raise sufficiency claim in Rule 37.1 postconviction proceeding
Admissibility of duplicate checks / failure to introduce originals	Pretrial counsel should have moved to suppress copies; appellate counsel should have raised admissibility on appeal	Originals were destroyed per bank policy; duplicates admissible under Ark. R. Evid. 1003; Williams objected at trial to copies	No relief — duplicates properly admissible; appellant failed to show appellate counsel omitted a meritorious issue
Failure to contact/call witness (Chris Turner)	Turner would have provided exculpatory testimony (was on video with Williams)	Williams failed to proffer what Turner would have testified to; calling witnesses is tactical	No relief — petitioner did not show what testimony would have been or a reasonable probability of a different outcome

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
Lemaster v. State, 459 S.W.3d 802 (Ark. 2015) (appellate standard for reviewing denial of postconviction relief)
Sales v. State, 441 S.W.3d 883 (Ark. 2014) (standard for clearly erroneous findings)
Watson v. State, 444 S.W.3d 835 (Ark. 2014) (right to effective assistance on appeal)
Rainer v. State, 440 S.W.3d 315 (Ark. 2014) (burden to show appellate counsel failed to raise a meritorious issue)