Summary
The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the denial of Calvin J. Stover’s pro se petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1. The court rejected claims involving judicial bias, conflicts of interest, ineffective assistance of counsel, evidentiary challenges, an amended charge, and the denial of an evidentiary hearing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Stover established that the trial judge's alleged bias was cognizable in a Rule 37.1 proceeding.
- Whether Stover established an actual or otherwise prejudicial conflict of interest involving his attorneys.
- Whether counsel were ineffective for failing to preserve or challenge the sufficiency of the evidence concerning the amount of methamphetamine.
- Whether counsel were ineffective for failing to object to the amendment of the criminal information adding a simultaneous-possession charge.
- Whether counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge the probable cause underlying the arrest warrant and the resulting search.
- Whether counsel were ineffective for failing to obtain a ruling on a mistrial motion based on Stover's brief exposure to a prison-identification bracelet and a deputy sheriff.
- Whether counsel were ineffective for failing to investigate and call defense witnesses.
- Whether the circuit court erred by denying Rule 37.1 relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
Holdings
- Allegations of judicial bias must be raised at trial and addressed on direct appeal; they are not cognizable in postconviction proceedings. Stover's conclusory allegations therefore did not warrant Rule 37.1 relief.
- A bare allegation that counsel had a conflict is insufficient to establish an actual conflict of interest. Absent an actual conflict, the petitioner must prove deficient performance and a reasonable probability that the result would have been different.
- The court will not address new factual allegations or claims raised for the first time on appeal from the denial of postconviction relief.
- Stover failed to establish ineffective assistance from counsel's failure to move for a directed verdict or preserve a sufficiency challenge because the evidence established more than 100 milligrams of methamphetamine and the amount of diluent did not negate the criminality of possession.
- Counsel were not ineffective for failing to object to the amendment adding a simultaneous-possession charge because the amendment did not change the nature or degree of the offense or create unfair surprise.
- Stover failed to establish ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to challenge the arrest warrant or suppress evidence because dismissal of the underlying charges, without more, did not establish that the warrant lacked probable cause or was invalid.
- Stover failed to show ineffective assistance from counsel's failure to obtain a ruling on the mistrial motion because the brief and inadvertent exposure to the bracelet did not establish a meritorious appellate issue or show prejudice.
- Stover failed to establish ineffective assistance concerning counsel's decision not to call witnesses because he did not properly support the claim and the circuit court found that counsel exercised reasonable professional judgment.
- The circuit court did not err by denying postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because the petition's allegations were conclusory and unsupported by the record.
Key quotations
“This court will not reverse the trial court’s decision granting or denying postconviction relief unless it is clearly erroneous.” (at 2)
“Under the two-prong standard outlined in Strickland, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner must show that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced his defense.” (at 2)
“Conclusory allegations that are unsupported by facts do not provide a basis for either an evidentiary hearing or postconviction relief.” (at 10)
Factual background
Stover was convicted of three drug- and firearm-related offenses and sentenced to an aggregate term of 480 months. In his Rule 37.1 petition, he alleged that the trial judge was biased and that appointed counsel were ineffective because of alleged conflicts, failures to preserve or litigate issues, failures to investigate witnesses, and other asserted errors. The circuit court relied on the record and denied relief without a hearing, concluding that the allegations were conclusory or unsupported and that counsel's performance was not ineffective.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Stover of possession of methamphetamine, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, resulting in an aggregate sentence of 480 months' imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences, and its mandate issued on July 8, 2014. Stover timely filed a verified Rule 37.1 petition alleging judicial bias and ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, and the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed.