Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 433

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS 

DIVISION I AND II 

No. CR-16-813

JERRIME WADE MARDIS 

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered: September 6, 2017 

APPEAL FROM THE SALINE

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT 

[NO. 63CR-15-622] 

HONORABLE GARY ARNOLD, 

JUDGE

SUBSTITUTED OPINION ON THE 

GRANT OF REHEARING; 

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED 

BART F. VIRDEN, Judge

Appellant Jerrime Wade Mardis appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction 

relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1. On appeal, he argues that the 

trial court erred in denying his Rule 37 petition without affording him a hearing on his 

claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We find no error and affirm. 

In December 2015, Mardis was charged with one count of aggravated residential 

burglary (a Class Y felony), one count of residential burglary (a Class B felony), and one 

count of possession of a firearm by certain persons (a Class B felony), and he was identified 

as a habitual offender. On January 11, 2016, the trial court held a plea hearing at which the 

following exchanged occurred:

MARDIS: I was going to ask my attorney what percentage of time I would do on 

this thirty years, and he will not tell me. Was just wondering if I could 

find out what that falls under, if it’s half, or a third, or what— 
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 433

2 

COUNSEL: I have told him that I don’t know the answer to that. 

COURT: You should understand that there’s no guarantee with anything other 

than straight thirty years. There’s no guarantee that you get any 

percentage of anything. 

Later that day, Mardis accepted the State’s plea offer, and he pled guilty to two counts 

of residential burglary and possession of a firearm. The trial court questioned Mardis about 

his understanding of the plea deal: 

COURT: Did you go over this guilty plea statement? 

MARDIS: Yes, sir. 

COURT: By signing and dating each of the pages, you indicated to me that you 

understand and accept all of that information, is that correct? 

MARDIS: Yes, sir. 

COURT: Okay. Any questions at all before I ask you how you plea?

MARDIS: No, sir. 

After the charges had been read and Mardis made his statement of guilt, the State and 

the trial court clarified the sentence with Mardis once again: 

PROSECUTOR: . . . And on the guilty plea statement, I highlighted paragraph 17, the 

fact that Mr. Mardis should expect that he may have to do the whole 

sentence, and I wanted to make sure that was clear and we brought 

that up this morning. 

COURT: Hopefully, I made it clear as well that there is no assurance that you 

get any time off of this sentence imposed. 

MARDIS: I understand that. 

Mardis was sentenced as a habitual offender to thirty years in the Arkansas 

Department of Correction (ADC) without eligibility for parole on each count of residential 
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 433

3 

burglary and to twenty years without parole for possession of a firearm by certain purposes. 

The sentences were to run concurrently. On March 22, 2016, Mardis filed a motion to 

withdraw his guilty plea and a Rule 37 petition for ineffective assistance of counsel, and he 

requested a hearing on the matter. In his petition, Mardis raised three issues: (1) trial counsel 

was ineffective for stating that Mardis would be eligible for parole after serving one-third of 

his sentence; (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately investigate prior to the 

plea hearing; and (3) he was denied due process because the trial court failed to ensure that 

he was intelligently and voluntarily pleading guilty. 

On April 5, 2016, Mardis’s trial counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and 

responded that Mardis’s allegation was false. Counsel explained that he had told Mardis that 

he would likely have to serve the entire thirty-year sentence. 

On May 19, 2016, without conducting a hearing on the matter, the trial court denied 

Mardis’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and Rule 37 petition. Mardis filed a motion for 

reconsideration, which the trial court denied on August 25, 2016. Mardis filed a timely 

notice of appeal from the original denial of his Rule 37 petition, and he filed a timely 

amended notice of appeal referencing the denial of his motion for reconsideration. Mardis 

asserts on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his petition without an evidentiary 

hearing. We disagree and affirm. 

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. Mason v. State, 2013 Ark. 492, at 1-2, 430 S.W.3d 759, 761.

A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate 
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 433

4 

court, after reviewing the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that 

a mistake has been committed. Id. 

When considering an appeal from a trial court’s denial of a Rule 37 petition, the 

question presented is whether, under the standard set forth by the United States Supreme 

Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), the trial court clearly erred in holding 

that counsel’s performance was not ineffective. Anderson v. State, 2011 Ark. 488, 385 S.W.3d 

783. The rule for evaluating ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims in cases involving guilty 

pleas appears in Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985). In that case, the Supreme Court held 

that the “cause and prejudice” test of Strickland applied to challenges to guilty pleas based 

on ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court further held that in order to show prejudice 

in the context of a guilty plea, the petitioner must show that there is a reasonable probability 

that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on 

going to trial. Hill, 474 U.S. at 59. An appellant who has entered a guilty plea normally will 

have considerable difficulty in proving any prejudice, because the plea rests on an admission 

in open court that the appellant did the act charged. Jamett v. State, 2010 Ark. 28, 358 

S.W.3d 874 (per curiam). Further, a petitioner under Rule 37.1 must allege some direct 

correlation between counsel’s deficient behavior and the decision to enter the plea. Scott v. 

State, 2012 Ark. 199, at 8–9, 406 S.W.3d 1, 5–6. 

Additionally, when a Rule 37 petition is denied without a hearing pursuant to Rule 

37.3(a), we review the trial court’s written findings setting forth that the petition is wholly 

without merit or that it is conclusive on the face of the record that the petitioner is entitled 

to no relief for clear error. See Henington v. State, 2012 Ark. 181, at 9, 403 S.W.3d 55, 62. 
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 433

5 

Our supreme court set forth in Mancia v. State, 2015 Ark. 115, at 25, 459 S.W.3d 259, 275. 

that the trial court has the discretion to deny relief without a hearing: “The trial court need 

not hold an evidentiary hearing where it can be conclusively shown on the record, or the 

face of the petition itself, that the allegations have no merit.” See Bienemy v. State, 2011 Ark. 

320, at 5, (per curiam). 

Mardis admitted at the plea hearing that his attorney had not told him how much of 

his sentence he would serve. Mardis’s attorney explained to the court that he had told Mardis 

that he did not know how much of his sentence he would serve. The court also clarified 

for Mardis that he may serve the entire sentence. The record shows that Mardis took some 

time to think about the State’s plea offer, and Mardis decided he would take the plea. When 

the plea hearing continued, the trial court and the prosecutor again clarified for Mardis that 

he might be required to serve the entire thirty years. Mardis agreed that he understood his 

sentence, and the written plea agreement shows that he placed his initials on paragraph 17 

where it sets forth that “[n]either the Prosecuting Attorney, nor my attorney, nor the Court, 

nor anyone else, has made any representations to me about being released from confinement 

sooner than the actual sentence that I will receive from the Court. I understand that I may 

have to serve the full sentence before I am released.” 

The petition, the files, and the record conclusively show that Mardis is not entitled 

to relief, and as such, the trial court did not err in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing 

before denying his petition for Rule 37 relief. The court must make written findings to 

support its decision that the petitioner is not entitled to Rule 37 relief, specifying any parts 

of the files or records that are relied on to sustain the court’s findings. Ark. R. Crim. P. 
Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 433

6 

37.3(a). Here, the trial court did not make specific written findings regarding Mardis’s 

postconviction claims; however, even if the court does not make specific written findings, 

we may affirm in the absence of an adequate order if the record before this court 

conclusively shows that the petition is without merit. Carter v. State, 342 Ark. 535, 29 

S.W.3d 716 (2000). As described earlier, the record shows that Mardis’s petition advances 

no meritorious position. 

Furthermore, in his appeal Mardis does not allege that but for the error of counsel, 

he would have insisted on going to trial; thus, Mardis has not shown prejudice. See Strickland, 

supra. 

Affirmed as modified. 

ABRAMSON, HARRISON, GLOVER, HIXSON, and MURPHY JJ., agree. 

Benca & Benca, by: Patrick J. Benca, for appellant. 

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Brooke Jackson Gasaway, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.