Flowers v. State

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed Eric Flowers’s appeal from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1, concluding that he could not prevail on his ineffective-assistance and speedy-trial claims. The court held that the appeal was dismissed and that Flowers’s motions for an extension of time and trial-transcript copies were moot.

Holdings

1. An appeal from an order denying a petition for postconviction relief will not be permitted to proceed when it is clear from the record that the appellant could not prevail.
2. A reasonable trial-strategy decision to pursue a general-denial defense rather than a mental-defect or diminished-capacity defense is not a basis for Rule 37.1 relief, and voluntary intoxication is not a defense to any crime in Arkansas.
3. A petitioner is not entitled to postconviction relief merely by alleging that appointed capital-murder counsel lacked ten years of capital-case experience, particularly where the petitioner cites no authority establishing such a requirement.
4. Counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to make an objection, request, or argument that lacks merit; Flowers failed to show that the State violated a discovery rule or that a continuance or mistrial motion would have been warranted.
5. Flowers failed to establish ineffective assistance because the criminal information expressly charged capital murder predicated on robbery and therefore provided the notice he claimed was absent.
6. Continuances requested by the defense are excludable for the entire period of delay in calculating Arkansas's twelve-month speedy-trial period; Flowers therefore could not establish a meritorious speedy-trial claim or ineffective assistance for failing to raise it.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appeal from the denial of Flowers's Rule 37.1 petition should be permitted to proceed when the record showed that he could not prevail.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for pursuing a general-denial strategy instead of a mental-defect or diminished-capacity defense based on voluntary intoxication.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to establish that appointed counsel lacked at least ten years of capital-murder experience.
4. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a continuance, mistrial, or exclusion of testimony based on an alleged discovery violation.
5. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the jury instructions or felony information for lack of notice of the robbery predicate.
6. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a speedy-trial motion.

Disposition

dismissed