Appellant's final points in his petition where that trial counsel should have pursued an insanity defense and that counsel failed to investigate witnesses that would support an insanity defense. At the Rule 37 hearing, counsel testified that they had discussed an insanity defense, and he pursued that defense up until the time appellant pled guilty. According to counsel, he was unable to obtain an expert to refute the evidence put forth by the State. Counsel also testified that he did not interview a person mentioned by appellant because he believed that the testimony would be of no benefit based on appellant's behavior the day of the murder. Questions of trial strategy are matters of professional judgment about which experienced advocates could engage in endless debate.
Decisions regarding witness testimony are matters of trial strategy.
As a result, such questions are not cognizable under Rule 37. Appellant filed a pro se brief as permitted by Ark. Sup. However, appellant's brief does not set forth any arguments challenging the denial of his Rule 37 petition or any specific challenges that his trial counsel was ineffective. Appellant has only set forth arguments and factual matters that should have been pursued below. From a review of the record and briefs before this court, we find the appeal to be without merit.