Wooten v. State
2016 Ark. 376
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Adrian Wooten was convicted by a jury of rape and aggravated-residential burglary in 2014 and sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive lengthy terms.
- Trial counsel filed a Rule 33.3 motion for new trial, arguing the victim was incompetent and alleging prosecutorial misconduct; the motion was orally denied at a hearing and later deemed denied by operation of law.
- New counsel was appointed for direct appeal; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, rejecting the competency challenge.
- Wooten filed a timely pro se Rule 37.1 petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel (failure to obtain a written denial of the new-trial motion, failure to raise prosecutorial-misconduct claims on appeal, and failure to raise a Johnson-based challenge to the habitual-offender enhancement).
- The trial court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding the prosecutorial-misconduct claims not cognizable in the petition, trial counsel’s failure to obtain a written order was strategic and nonprejudicial, and the Johnson-based challenge was conclusory and inapplicable to Arkansas’s statutory scheme.
- Wooten appealed pro se; the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the Rule 37.1 claims lacked merit and that no hearing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to obtain written order on denial of new-trial motion | Wooten: counsel erred by not securing a written order denying the motion, prejudicing his appeal | State: motion deemed denied; failing to obtain written order was strategic and did not prejudice appeal; appellate counsel did not amend notice to appeal the posttrial motion | Denied — no prejudice; claim specious and conclusory |
| Ineffective appellate assistance for failing to raise prosecutorial misconduct on direct appeal | Wooten: prosecutor’s hostility and remarks (e.g., calling him a "thing", commenting on counsel/jurors, commenting on silence) deprived him of a fair trial and should have been raised on appeal | State: petitioner failed to specify statements or show objections were preserved; many remarks not objected to contemporaneously; failure to raise meritless or unpreserved issues is not deficient | Denied — insufficient specificity and preservation; no reversible error shown |
| Challenge under Johnson to habitual-offender enhancement | Wooten: post-Johnson, Arkansas’s enhancement is vague as applied to out-of-state priors; appellate counsel ineffective for not raising it | State: Arkansas statute enumerates offenses; Wooten was sentenced under a count-based habitual-enhancer (based on number of prior felonies), not the federal residual-clause language in Johnson | Denied — Johnson inapplicable; claim conclusory and meritless |
| Denial of hearing / sufficiency of findings under Rule 37.3(a) | Wooten: trial court abused discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing and failed to make findings on all appellate-ineffective-assistance claims | State: court may deny hearing if files/records are sufficient; petition and record conclusively show claims lack merit | Denied — no abuse of discretion; findings sufficient; petition wholly without merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Ayala v. State, 365 Ark. 194 (an argument in a posttrial motion deemed denied is not preserved on appeal unless notice of appeal is amended)
- Smith v. State, 354 Ark. 226 (issues in a motion for new trial are before the appellate court despite absence of a written ruling)
- Taylor v. State, 2015 Ark. 339 (standard for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and that failure to raise meritless issues is not deficient)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (invalidating federal residual-clause as unconstitutionally vague)
- Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (holding Johnson is retroactive)