Barber v. State

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed Tommy Martez Barber’s appeal from the denial of his Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 postconviction petition and held his motion for appointment of counsel moot. The court concluded that Barber failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel concerning parole eligibility or discovery materials, and that the trial court did not clearly err in denying relief.

Holdings

1. There is no constitutional requirement for defense counsel to inform a client about parole eligibility, and failure to do so does not fall outside the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.
2. Assertions challenging the sufficiency of evidence are not cognizable in a Rule 37.1 proceeding, and the sole issue following a guilty plea is whether the plea was intelligently and voluntarily entered on advice from competent counsel.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court clearly erred in denying postconviction relief on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding advice on parole eligibility.
2. Whether claims challenging the sufficiency of evidence and failure to receive discovery materials are cognizable in a Rule 37.1 proceeding following a guilty plea.

Disposition

dismissed