Opinion ID: 6107861
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Fact Qualifying During Closing Argument Demonstrating Hostility Toward the Defendant

Text: For his fifth point on appeal, Gordon contends that his trial counsel was ineffective by fact qualifying during closing arguments, demonstrating hostility toward Gordon. Gordon contends that trial counsel professed guilt to the jury before the jury retired for deliberations[ ] and that counsel bolstered the State's theory of its case-in-chief. Gordon argued in his petition below that trial counsel was ineffective for fact qualifying for the jury and for his remarks during [v]oir [d]ire. Gordon also argued in his petition that counsel showed hostility toward Gordon's case-in-chief during [v]oir [d]ire. While Gordon's arguments on appeal are similar to the arguments made in the petition, Gordon has clearly changed the scope of his arguments, including both his claims for fact qualifying and hostility, from making the claims with regard to counsel's ineffective assistance during voir dire to counsel's ineffective assistance during closing argument. As discussed above, an appellant in a Rule 37.1 proceeding is limited to the scope and nature of his arguments below, and he or she cannot raise new arguments on appeal. Tester , 342 Ark. 549 , 30 S.W.3d 99 . Gordon has failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing or postconviction relief. Henington , 2012 Ark. 181 , 403 S.W.3d 55 . We do not find merit in Gordon's argument and affirm the circuit court.