Williams v. State, 571 S.W.3d 921

Background

Roderick R. Williams was convicted (after a second trial) of capital murder and related charges; he received life without parole plus consecutive terms. His convictions following a retrial were affirmed by this court in Williams v. State, 2011 Ark. 432, 385 S.W.3d 157.
This case arose after this court had reversed Williams’s first convictions and ordered a new trial because of an officer-witness’s improper remark in the first trial. Williams v. State, 2010 Ark. 89, 377 S.W.3d 168.
Before the second trial, parties agreed witnesses/officials would avoid using the word “trial” to prevent juror exposure to prior proceedings; during the second trial, witness Harris briefly referenced “the last trial.”
Trial counsel moved for a mistrial; the court denied it and counsel (on record) declined an admonition to avoid drawing more attention to the remark as a strategic choice.
Williams filed a pro se Rule 37.1 petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel (failure to request admonition, failure to challenge Harris’s prior-statement perjury, and failure to raise evidentiary issues on appeal). The trial court denied the petition without a hearing or appointed counsel, finding it wholly without merit.
The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding the petition lacked meritorious claims and that the trial court did not err in summary denial or in declining to appoint counsel.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trial counsel ineffective for not requesting admonition after Harris’s remark about a prior trial	Williams: counsel should have sought an admonition to cure juror prejudice	State: counsel reasonably declined admonition as strategy to avoid highlighting the remark	Affirmed: withholding admonition was a reasonable tactical decision; no Strickland prejudice shown
Trial counsel ineffective for not impeaching Harris about alleged perjured statement in first trial	Williams: counsel should have exposed Harris’s incorrect statement that he was convicted to discredit her	State: raising the prior statement risked informing jury of nol-prossed/other charges and causing greater harm	Affirmed: reasonable tactical choice; risk outweighed speculative benefit
Appellate counsel ineffective for not challenging trial court evidentiary rulings limiting cross-exam of Harris	Williams: appellate counsel should have raised trial evidentiary errors that limited credibility impeachment	State: Williams failed to show the questions were relevant or what evidence would have been elicited; no meritorious appellate issue shown	Affirmed: petitioner did not show trial error or that appellate counsel omitted a meritorious issue
Trial court denied Rule 37.1 petition without a hearing or appointing counsel; sufficiency-of-evidence claim raised on appeal	Williams: court should have held an evidentiary hearing and appointed counsel; also now argues insufficiency on premeditation	State: petition was conclusively without merit so no hearing or appointment required; sufficiency claims not cognizable in Rule 37 proceedings and were not raised below	Affirmed: summary denial and refusal to appoint counsel not an abuse; sufficiency claim not considered because not raised in petition

Key Cases Cited

Williams v. State, 2011 Ark. 432, 385 S.W.3d 157 (affirming convictions after retrial)
Williams v. State, 2010 Ark. 89, 377 S.W.3d 168 (reversing first trial for mistrial error based on witness remark)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
Gordon v. State, 2018 Ark. 73, 539 S.W.3d 586 (standard of review for Rule 37.1 denials)
Mancia v. State, 2015 Ark. 115, 459 S.W.3d 259 (trial court may summarily deny Rule 37 petitions conclusively without merit)
Beverage v. State, 2015 Ark. 112, 458 S.W.3d 243 (no hearing required when petition facially merits no relief)
McClinton v. State, 2018 Ark. 116, 542 S.W.3d 859 (direct sufficiency challenges not cognizable in Rule 37 proceedings)
Sims v. State, 2015 Ark. 363, 472 S.W.3d 107 (declining admonition is generally a matter of trial strategy)
Lee v. State, 2017 Ark. 337, 532 S.W.3d 43 (strategic decisions are protected if reasonable)
Johnson v. State, 2018 Ark. 6, 534 S.W.3d 143 (strategic decisions outside Rule 37 relief when reasonable)
State v. Rainer, 2014 Ark. 306, 440 S.W.3d 315 (burden on petitioner alleging appellate counsel ineffective)
Hill v. State, 2018 Ark. 194, 546 S.W.3d 483 (relevance standard for admissible evidence)
Swift v. State, 2018 Ark. 74, 540 S.W.3d 288 (appellate courts do not consider arguments raised first on appeal)