Lowe v. State

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court denied James Robert Lowe’s petition for a writ of certiorari seeking to supplement the record in his appeal from the denial of postconviction relief and dismissed the appeal. The court held that Lowe could not prevail on his Rule 37.1 claims, including ineffective-assistance claims, because his allegations failed to establish prejudice and his other claims were not cognizable in the proceeding.

Holdings

1. The petition for writ of certiorari to supplement the record was denied because the requested materials were either not before the trial court, unnecessary to the appeal, already contained in the record, or available through judicial notice.
2. An appeal from an order denying a petition for postconviction relief will not proceed when it is clear that the appellant cannot prevail on appeal.
3. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct, denial of a fair trial, and denial of due process that attack trial error are not cognizable in a Rule 37.1 proceeding and should have been raised at trial or on direct appeal.
4. Lowe was not entitled to Rule 37.1 relief because none of his ineffective-assistance allegations pleaded facts sufficient to establish prejudice under Strickland.
5. Although Rule 37.3 generally requires written findings identifying the portions of the files or record relied upon when denying relief without a hearing, reversal is not required when the petition is conclusively without merit on its face.
6. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lowe's second motion to amend his Rule 37.1 petition when it had previously permitted an amendment and the second motion was filed only a few days before the denial order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appellate record should be supplemented with recordings, receipts, police reports, and testimony from an unrelated revocation proceeding.
2. Whether the appeal from the denial of Rule 37.1 relief should be dismissed because Lowe could not prevail on appeal.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a second motion to amend the Rule 37.1 petition.
4. Whether the trial court's findings were insufficient under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.3.
5. Whether Lowe's ineffective-assistance claims established deficient performance and resulting prejudice under Strickland.
6. Whether claims of prosecutorial misconduct, denial of a fair trial, and denial of due process were cognizable in a Rule 37.1 proceeding.

Disposition

dismissed