Savage v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the denial, without a hearing, of Jerry Dewayne Savage’s petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1. The court rejected claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, including allegations concerning competency, venue, witness investigation, the statute of limitations, and impeachment evidence. It also held that the asserted Brady, prosecutorial-misconduct, due-process, and competency claims did not warrant relief.

Holdings

1. An order granting or denying postconviction relief will not be reversed unless the circuit court's findings are clearly erroneous.
2. A Rule 37.1 petitioner must satisfy both prongs of Strickland v. Washington by showing deficient performance and resulting prejudice; failure to establish either prong defeats the claim.
3. To establish prejudice from counsel's failure to investigate or call a witness, a petitioner must identify specific admissible testimony and show a reasonable probability that it would have changed the outcome; generalized evidence of confusion or odd behavior did not establish prejudice regarding competency to stand trial.
4. A petitioner alleging ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to seek a change of venue must provide a basis for concluding that an impartial jury was not empaneled; conclusory assertions about county size, publicity, or local relationships are insufficient.
5. A victim's mother's employment by a law-enforcement agency and her admission that she had been suspicious of the conduct did not constitute a report of the crimes to a law-enforcement agency for purposes of Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-1-109(h).
6. Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, Brady violations, due-process violations, and other trial error generally must be raised at trial or on direct appeal and are not cognizable for the first time in a Rule 37.1 petition, absent fundamental error rendering the judgment void and subject to collateral attack.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court clearly erred in denying Savage's Rule 37.1 claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
2. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or present testimony and expert evidence concerning Savage's mental condition and competency.
3. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a change of venue, challenge the statute of limitations, investigate alleged impeachment materials, or advise against Savage's decision to testify.
4. Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise additional arguments or supplement the record.
5. Whether alleged Brady violations, prosecutorial misconduct, perjured testimony, due-process violations, and trial-court error concerning competency could be raised in a Rule 37.1 proceeding.

Disposition

affirmed