Carter v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that a petition for postconviction relief filed on the same day an appellate mandate issued is timely under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(c). The court dismissed Carter’s appeal because he could not prevail on his ineffective-assistance claims, finding that he failed to establish prejudice under Strickland v. Washington and failed to substantiate his fair-cross-section claim. Pending motions for photocopying, access to the record, and extensions were deemed moot.

Holdings

1. A petition for postconviction relief filed on the same day the appellate court issues its mandate is timely under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(c).
2. Carter was not entitled to Rule 37.1 relief because he failed to show a reasonable probability that further investigation, consultation with a store representative, or witness interviews would have changed the aggravated-robbery verdict.
3. Carter failed to establish ineffective assistance because he did not show that counsel's decision to rely on the absence of positive video evidence, rather than obtain the video, was outside the range of reasonable professional judgment or caused prejudice.
4. Carter failed to establish ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to challenge jury selection because he offered no factual proof or adequate legal support showing systematic exclusion of a distinctive group.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a Rule 37.1 petition filed on the same day that the appellate court issued its mandate is timely under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(c).
2. Whether Carter established ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's alleged failure to investigate the security system, speak with a store representative, interview or call witnesses, or obtain surveillance video.
3. Whether Carter established ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to challenge the jury-selection process as violating the fair-cross-section requirement.
4. Whether Carter's appeal and pending motions should proceed when it was clear that he could not prevail on his postconviction claims.

Disposition

dismissed