Mathis v. State

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Donald Ray Mathis’s petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1. The court rejected or declined to reach his claims concerning ineffective assistance of counsel, jury instructions, suppression of evidence, sentencing, accomplice testimony, spousal privilege, and sufficiency of the evidence.

Holdings

1. The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviews the denial of postconviction relief for clear error and, for ineffective-assistance claims, determines whether the circuit court clearly erred under the totality-of-the-evidence standard of Strickland v. Washington.
2. An appellant in a Rule 37.1 proceeding is limited to the scope and nature of the arguments presented to the circuit court and may not raise new arguments or change the grounds for an argument for the first time on appeal.
3. A petitioner claiming ineffective assistance for counsel's failure to request a lesser-included-offense instruction must show that the failure prejudiced the defense and that there was a rational basis for the instruction; a meritless motion or argument cannot support an ineffective-assistance claim.
4. Claims concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, including assertions that the defendant was not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, are matters for trial and direct appeal and are not cognizable in a Rule 37.1 postconviction proceeding.
5. Conclusory allegations that counsel was ineffective do not overcome the presumption that counsel was effective and do not support postconviction relief.
6. A Rule 37.1 petitioner does not establish ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to object to consecutive sentences absent a showing that the sentences were outside the statutory range or that counsel had a meritorious objection; the decision whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively is within the trial judge's province.
7. Claims raised below but not raised on appeal are considered abandoned.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court clearly erred in denying Mathis's Rule 37.1 claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate, request a lesser-included-offense instruction, move to suppress evidence, challenge accomplice testimony, object to Miller's testimony, and object to consecutive sentences.
2. Whether Mathis could raise on appeal new grounds or arguments that were not presented in his Rule 37.1 petition.
3. Whether Mathis's sufficiency-of-the-evidence, reasonable-doubt, and Eighth Amendment sentencing claims were cognizable in a Rule 37.1 proceeding.

Disposition

affirmed