Young v. State, 2013 Ark. 513

Leslie Young was convicted in 2006 of capital murder, aggravated robbery, attempted arson, and two counts of theft; she received life without parole plus 636 years.
This Court affirmed in part, remanded for a suppression hearing (Young v. State, 370 Ark. 147), and after remand later affirmed denial of suppression (373 Ark. 41); mandate issued April 8, 2008.
Young filed a Rule 37.1 postconviction petition on February 27, 2009; it was denied and this Court dismissed her attempted appeal as untimely.
On March 22, 2013 Young filed a pro se motion in the trial court seeking a new sentencing hearing, alleging trial counsel failed to inform her of a prosecutor’s plea offer until after conviction.
Trial court denied the motion; Young appealed and also filed a certiorari petition to compel lodging of the record (moot because record was lodged).
The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed, holding the motion was an untimely and successive Rule 37.1 petition and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief.

Issue	Young's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Young's motion alleging ineffective assistance for failure to convey a plea offer was cognizable outside Rule 37.1 time limits	Counsel failed to inform Young of plea offer; she should get new sentencing hearing despite delay	Claim is an ineffective-assistance claim properly governed by Rule 37.1 and subject to its time limits	Motion was a Rule 37.1 petition and untimely; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether the motion could be considered timely under Lafler/Frye (2012 Supreme Court decisions)	Lafler and Frye permit relief based on counsel's plea-related errors and thus justify late filing	Lafler/Frye were not shown to apply retroactively to Young's case	Court rejected retroactivity argument; Lafler/Frye did not save the untimely petition
Whether alleged denial of right to attend pretrial/omnibus hearing required relief	Young asserted prejudice from being denied attendance	State noted issue not argued on appeal	Issue not preserved on appeal and deemed abandoned
Whether this motion was a successive Rule 37.1 petition barred by rule	N/A (Young did not argue permission to file second petition)	Young already filed a Rule 37.1 petition earlier that was not dismissed without prejudice; second petition barred	Motion also constituted a successive petition and was barred under Rule 37.1(b)

Young v. State, 370 Ark. 147 (affirming conviction in part; remanding for suppression hearing) (Ark. 2007)
Young v. State, 373 Ark. 41 (affirming denial of suppression after remand) (Ark. 2008)
Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) (plea-related ineffective assistance doctrine)
Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (prosecutor’s duty to communicate plea offers)
Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) (limitations on retroactive application of new ineffective-assistance rules)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel’s duty to advise on collateral consequences of plea)