Wood v. State, 478 S.W.3d 194

Background

Howard Wood pleaded guilty to first-degree sexual assault and was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
Wood filed a Rule 37.1 postconviction petition alleging seven grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and related errors; the circuit court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing.
Wood appealed, arguing counsel was ineffective (seven specific claims) and that the court erred in refusing a hearing.
The majority reviewed under Strickland/Hill standards for guilty-plea ineffective-assistance claims and the clear-error standard for denial without a hearing under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.3(a).
The majority affirmed the denial, concluding Wood’s claims were meritless, conclusory, not cognizable under Rule 37.1, or failed to show the required prejudice (i.e., that but for counsel’s errors he would not have pleaded guilty).
Justice Hart dissented, arguing summary disposition was improper—particularly given Wood’s PTSD allegations and veteran status—and would have remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Issues

Issue	Wood's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Validity of charging statute	Wood: counsel ineffective for not objecting because subsection cited was not in effect when offense occurred	State: substantive law in effect on offense date controls; objection would be meritless	Affirmed — no error; counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless objection
Mental-health/competency evaluation	Wood: counsel should have requested evaluation for PTSD; court should have sua sponte ordered one	State: Wood told court PTSD did not affect him; presumption of competence; no specific evidence of incompetence or prejudice	Affirmed — no relief; Wood failed to show incompetence or that counsel’s errors affected plea decision
Prosecutorial misconduct	Wood: prosecutor threatened additional charges, coercing plea	State: prosecutorial-misconduct claims not cognizable in Rule 37.1; plea induced by harsher exposure is not coercion	Affirmed — claim not cognizable or insufficient
Facial invalidity of sentencing order	Wood: incorrect date on sentencing order renders it facially invalid and suggests plea done without his knowledge	State: date error was clerical; documents were prepared earlier and used later; signature present; no prejudice shown	Affirmed — clerical error only; no impact on plea validity
Jail-time credit	Wood: entitled to 1,100 days credit instead of 100 days	State: record supports 100 days; claim not cognizable as plea-voluntariness issue; no showing counsel’s error changed plea decision	Affirmed — claim unsupported and not cognizable
Adequacy of counsel’s investigation	Wood: counsel failed to read affidavit/properly discuss case before plea	State: allegations conclusory; petitioner must plead facts showing reasonable probability he would have gone to trial	Affirmed — conclusory; no prejudice shown
Waiver of appeal/right to appeal	Wood: counsel coerced him into waiving appeal rights and he was prejudiced	State: plea was unconditional; Rule bars appeals from guilty pleas except as provided elsewhere; Wood did not show he would have insisted on trial	Affirmed — claim fails; no entitlement to relief

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applies Strickland prejudice analysis to guilty-plea challenges)
Prater v. State, 402 S.W.3d 68 (Ark. 2013) (appellate standard reviewing Rule 37.1 denials)
Henington v. State, 403 S.W.3d 55 (Ark. 2012) (review of denials without a hearing under Rule 37.3)
Polivka v. State, 362 S.W.3d 918 (Ark. 2010) (limits cognizable Rule 37 claims to those affecting voluntariness and counsel competence)
Buchheit v. State, 6 S.W.3d 109 (Ark. 1999) (prejudice requirement for plea-related ineffective-assistance claims)
Beverage v. State, 458 S.W.3d 243 (Ark. 2015) (example where this court ordered evidentiary hearing on postconviction claim)