ROBBINS V. STATEROBBINS V. STATE
This case has a lengthy and complex procedural history. Robert Robbins was convicted of murdering his ex-girlfriend, Bethany White, in 1998. Robbins insisted on representing himself and actively sought the death penalty from the jury; the court allowed him to represent himself but had attorney Val Price function as stand-by counsel. The jury sentenced him to death, and Robbins initially waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, a waiver that this court upheld in Robbins v. State, 335 Ark. 380, 985 S.W.2d 293 (1998) (per curiam) (Robbins I).
In State v. Robbins, 336 Ark. 377, 985 S.W.2d 296 (1999) (per curiam) (Robbins II), this court held that Robbins had also waived his right to seek postconviction relief pursuant to
Robbins then sought federal habeas corpus relief, arguing that the jury had rendered inconsistent findings on the verdict forms. The federal court ruled that Robbins‘s claims had not yet been addressed in state court and dismissed his petition for failure to exhaust his state remedies. In Robbins v. State, 353 Ark. 556, 114 S.W.3d 217 (2003) (Robbins VI), this court granted Robbins‘s motion to reopen the case and issued a writ of certiorari, ordering that the record be supplemented with the original verdict forms. Upon receipt of those forms, this court held that any alleged inconsistencies in the verdict forms amounted to harmless error and affirmed Robbins‘s death sentence. Robbins v. State, 356 Ark. 225, 149 S.W.3d 871 (2004) (Robbins VII).
After rehearing was denied and the mandate issued in Robbins VII, Robbins filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to
The circuit court entered an order on January 19, 2010, denying Robbins‘s petition for postconviction relief, determining that Robbins had not been denied effective assistance of counsel. The court ultimately found, however, that “the interest of justice would warrant a reduction of the death sentence to a sentence of life without the possibility of parole due to the age of the defendant and the lack of mitigation in the sentencing phase of the trial.” Thus, the court reduced Robbins‘s sentence from death to life without parole.
On February 17, 2010, Robbins‘s attorney, Dale Adams, filed a motion to reopen the Rule 37.5 hearing, asserting that, on January 19, 2010, he was informed that Val Price had located the missing files. Upon receiving those files, Adams discovered that they contained important materials pertaining to Robbins‘s history of psychological problems and requests for mental evaluations. Adams sought permission from the circuit court to reopen the Rule 37.5 hearing to allow the files to be placed into evidence and to recall Price to offer additional testimony. The State objected, and the circuit court denied the motion in an order entered on February 26, 2010.
Adams filed a notice of appeal on Robbins‘s behalf on March 9, 2010. When he attempted to lodge the record with this court, however, he was informed that his notice of appeal was untimely because it had not been filed within thirty days of the original order denying relief, but had instead been filed within thirty days of the order denying reopening of the Rule 37.5 hearing. On June 8, 2010, Adams filed the present motion for rule on clerk or, alternatively, for belated appeal.
We disagree. This court has held that “any posttrial motion made after a Rule 37 decision is ineffective and does not extend the time for filing the notice of appeal.” McJames v. State, 2010 Ark. 74, at 4 (emphasis added) (citing Morgan v. State, 360 Ark. 264, 200 S.W.3d 980 (2005)). Robbins attempts to distinguish McJames on the grounds that it involved a motion for reconsideration, rather than a motion to reopen the proceedings, and he urges this court to be guided by
We have noted that a defendant can request that a circuit court modify its order to include an issue that was raised in a Rule 37 petition, but not addressed in the order. This is because the failure to obtain a ruling on an issue precludes this court‘s review of it on appeal. See Watkins v. State, 2010 Ark. 156, 362 S.W.3d 910 (where the trial court provides written findings on at least one, but less than all, of the petitioner‘s Rule 37 claims, an appellant has the obligation to obtain a ruling on any omitted issues if they are to be considered on appeal); Matthews v. State, 333 Ark. 701, 975 S.W.2d 836 (1998).
The present case does not present such a situation, however. As noted above, the “newly discovered evidence” pertains to Robbins‘s mental status and various requests for further mental evaluations prior to trial. The trial court‘s order denying postconviction relief addresses Robbins‘s mental status, however, noting that Robbins was examined by the Arkansas State Hospital prior to trial and no mental disease or defect was found. In addition, the circuit court went the extra step before trial of having Dr. Michael Simon address the question of Robbins‘s competence to seek the death penalty, and Dr. Simon found no
As noted above, the circuit court entered its order denying Robbins‘s motion for postconviction relief on January 19, 2010. Robbins did not file a notice of appeal until March 9, 2010. The February 17, 2010 motion did not extend the time for filing the notice of appeal. See McJames, supra. His notice of appeal was untimely, and his appeal must be dismissed.2 See id.
CORBIN, J., not participating.