Corey Demont McClina v. State of Arkansas

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed Corey Demont McClina's convictions for residential burglary and misdemeanor theft. The court held that McClina waived his sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge by failing to move for dismissal at the close of all evidence as required by Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.1. The court also rejected his constitutional challenges to the procedural bar and declined to consider his ineffective-assistance claim because it had not been raised below.

Holdings

1. A defendant in a nonjury criminal trial must make a specific motion for dismissal at the close of all the evidence, before closing argument, to preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge for appellate review. McClina's closing argument concerning reasonable doubt did not constitute such a motion.
2. Applying Rule 33.1's preservation requirement to McClina did not violate due process because the rule served legitimate purposes and McClina was aware of the requirement.
3. The court would not consider McClina's ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal because he had not raised it below and had not developed the facts in the trial court. The procedural bar did not deny him counsel on appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether McClina preserved a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by referring to reasonable doubt during closing argument without making a motion for dismissal at the close of all evidence.
2. Whether applying Arkansas's procedural-default rule to bar review of the unpreserved sufficiency challenge violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or article 2, section 8, of the Arkansas Constitution.
3. Whether application of the procedural bar denied McClina his right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment or the Arkansas Constitution.
4. Whether the convictions for failure to appear and the probation revocation should be affirmed in light of counsel's no-merit submission.

Disposition

affirmed