Arnold v. State

2022 Ark. 191

653 S.W.3d 781

Chris Anthony ARNOLD, Appellant

v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR-22-176

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered: October 27, 2022

Craig Lambert, Little Rock, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Christian Harris, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

KAREN R. BAKER, Associate Justice

On September 20, 2017, a Pulaski County Circuit Court jury convicted appellant, Chris Anthony Arnold, of first-degree murder in the death of Maureen Jones and sentenced him to life imprisonment. We affirmed his conviction and sentence in Arnold v. State , 2018 Ark. 343, at 1–3, 561 S.W.3d 727, 728–29. The relevant facts as we recounted in Arnold's direct appeal are as follows:

Pauline Arnold ("Pauline"), Arnold's mother and Maureen's friend, regularly attended a bible study at Indianhead Baptist Church in Sherwood on Wednesday nights. Pauline stated that she and Maureen sat together at the bible study on Wednesday, November 30, 2016, and then Maureen headed home. The next morning, Pauline received a call from Lois Olsen ("Lois"), the church secretary, because Maureen had not attended a church breakfast meeting. Pauline proceeded to Maureen's home to check on her. When Pauline arrived at the residence, she entered through an unlocked back door and found Maureen in the hallway lying face down and partially clothed with a feminine-hygiene pad between her legs. Pauline stated that Maureen's body felt cold, and she called 911. Lois and Gary Brewer ("Gary") also entered the home. Pauline and Gary covered Maureen with a blanket because "she [wasn't] decent."

Officers from the Sherwood Police Department were dispatched to the victim's home to investigate a homicide. Detective Kisha Slaton testified at a pretrial hearing that Pauline stated, "Well, my son was just over here [at the house fishing] last night, and he didn't say there was anything wrong with her." Detective Slaton asked Pauline to call Arnold and then told Arnold to meet the officers at the police department for an interview. Emergency personnel later arrived and pronounced Maureen dead at the scene. Officers observed bruising, blood, and possible trauma to Maureen's face. A dark-colored scarf was tied around her neck, and her undergarments were found lying approximately five feet away. Officers also noticed a chemical odor consistent with bleach. They retrieved an off-white piece of a latex glove and a small blue piece of plastic and sent the two objects to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory for testing. An autopsy revealed that Maureen's cause of death was ligature strangulation. Subsequent testing revealed that Arnold's DNA was present on both of Maureen's hands. Tests also confirmed the presence of Arnold's DNA on the pieces of latex glove and plastic.

Detective Slaton and Detective Frank Spence interviewed Arnold at the Sherwood Police Department. In a statement to police, Arnold related that Maureen had allowed him to use her flat-bottomed boat and that he had been fishing at her house on the night of the murder. Arnold stated that he had seen Maureen feed her cats and then fall down the back-porch steps. He also stated that her face was bleeding and that he picked her up, carried her onto the porch, and placed her in front of a chair so that she could sit down. He claimed that Maureen slapped him and said, "[Y]ou don't need to do this. I don't need help[.]"

According to Arnold, Maureen walked into the house and began arguing with someone. He told the officer, "[S]he was arguing with somebody, I don't know who the hell it was. But I told Maureen I was getting the hell out of there because she was getting cranky."

On February 23, 2019, Arnold filed his Rule 37 petition alleging five grounds for relief. Also on February 23, Arnold filed a motion for leave to file amended petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 37 stating that counsel had recently been retained and the petition was filed as a "placeholder" petition in order to meet the deadline and requested a 120-day extension. On April 9, the circuit court granted Arnold's motion for leave to file an amended petition until May 15. On April 17, Arnold filed a motion to reconsider his motion for leave requesting the full 120 days to file an amended petition. On April 24, the circuit court denied Arnold's motion to reconsider, and May 15 remained the deadline. On June 13, the State responded to Arnold's February 23rd Rule 37 petition. On June 18, the circuit court granted Arnold an extension to file his reply. On July 3, Arnold filed a motion to strike the State's response or, alternatively, for extension of time to reply to the State's response. On July 8, Arnold filed a second motion to reconsider the circuit court's April 9 order granting eighty-one days to file his amended petition. In the motion, Arnold stated that he suspected prison officials were interfering with legal mail to Arnold, trial counsel had not acted expeditiously in responding to Arnold's requests, and counsel's out-of-the-country trip and professional obligations afforded him little time to comply with the May 15 deadline. On July 25, the circuit court denied Arnold's second motion to reconsider and motion to strike the State's response and granted an extension of time for Arnold to reply.

On October 3, without holding an evidentiary hearing, based on Arnold's petition and the State's response, the circuit court denied the following claims: (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present testimony by an independent DNA expert; (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present proof of Arnold's physical disabilities and limitations; (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to an improper closing argument for the State;¹ and (4) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call witnesses to testify regarding Arnold's character. The circuit court set a hearing for Arnold's remaining claim alleging that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate other possible suspects, Robert Ozments and Tasha Bowling.

On November 8, 2021, the circuit court held a hearing on Arnold's remaining claim and on November 30, the circuit court entered an order denying Arnold's claim regarding counsel's failure to investigate Ozments and Bowling as possible suspects. Arnold brings this timely appeal and presents three points: (1) the circuit court erred in refusing to grant Arnold's repeated requests for a reasonable period of time to file an amended petition for Rule 37 relief; (2) the circuit court erred in finding that Arnold received effective assistance of counsel; and (3) the circuit court erred in denying three of Arnold's claims without holding an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

I. Standard of Review

"On appeal from a trial court's ruling on a petitioner's request for Rule 37 relief, this court will not reverse the trial court's decision granting or denying postconviction relief unless it is clearly erroneous. Kemp v. State , 347 Ark. 52, 55, 60 S.W.3d 404, 406 (2001). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court after reviewing the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id. " Prater v. State , 2012 Ark. 164, at 8, 402 S.W.3d 68, 74.

"The benchmark for judging a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be ‘whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.’ Strickland [v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ]." Henington v. State , 2012 Ark. 181, at 3–4, 403 S.W.3d 55, 58. Pursuant to Strickland , we assess the effectiveness of counsel under a two-prong standard. First, a petitioner raising a claim of ineffective assistance must show that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed the petitioner by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Williams v. State , 369 Ark. 104, 251 S.W.3d 290 (2007). A petitioner making an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim must show that his counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Springs v. State , 2012 Ark. 87, 387 S.W.3d 143. A court must indulge in a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Id.

Second, the petitioner must show that counsel's deficient performance so prejudiced petitioner's defense that he was deprived of a fair trial. Id. The petitioner must show there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the fact-finder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt, i.e., the decision reached would have been different absent the errors. Howard v. State , 367 Ark. 18, 238 S.W.3d 24 (2006). A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. Id. Unless a petitioner makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction resulted from a breakdown in the adversarial process that renders the result unreliable. Id. Additionally, conclusory statements that counsel was ineffective cannot be the basis for postconviction relief. Anderson v. State , 2011 Ark. 488, 385 S.W.3d 783. Hinton v. State , 2019 Ark. 136, 7–8, 572 S.W.3d 381, 386–87.

With respect to an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim regarding the decision of trial counsel to call a witness, such matters are generally trial strategy and outside the purview of Rule 37.1. Banks v. State , 2013 Ark. 147, 2013 WL 1491272. When a petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call witnesses, it is incumbent on the petitioner to name the witness, provide a summary of the testimony, and establish that the testimony would have been admissible into evidence. Wertz v. State , 2014 Ark. 240, at 4, 434 S.W.3d 895, 900 (citing Moten v. State , 2013 Ark. 503, 2013 WL...