Opinion ID: 2184350
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Object to Comment Regarding Appellant's Possible Release from Prison

Text: During closing arguments, in pleading for the jury to sentence Greene to life imprisonment, his counsel argued that a life sentence would keep Greene from ever getting out of prison. The State objected, arguing that Greene could be released pursuant to commutation, pardon, or reprieve of the Governor. This court addressed the colloquy in Greene III as follows: Greene next contests a comment made by the prosecuting attorney regarding the potential for Greene's release should he be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The sequence of events and the colloquy between the judge and counsel follows: Defense Counsel: He's exhibited remorse for the death of Sydney Burnett.... I think Mr. Wilson argued that, Well, he's in prison over this thing now. Well, he's in prison. He's not getting out. He's never getting out of Tucker Maximum Security Unit at Tucker, Arkansas. Prosecutor: Judge, I'm going to object to that. That's misleading to the Jury. The Court: The Jury has heard the evidence. If Counsel misquotes the evidence, they can disregard it. Prosecutor: I'm talking about the situation about not getting out of the penitentiary. That's not the law and it's misleading. The Court: Well, I'll sustain that. Prosecutor: Thank you, sir. Defense Counsel: Well, I would submit then that the only way he would ever get out would be a Governor's Pardon, if that helps Mr. Prosecutor Wilson. Prosecutor: Well, Judge, it doesn't. The law is clear that he maybe released pursuant to commutation, pardon or reprieve of the Governor. The Court: That's correct. Prosecutor: Thank you, sir. Greene III, 343 Ark. at 539, 37 S.W.3d at 588. According to this court: Greene's counsel made no objection to this colloquy but now contests the prosecutor's summary of the law for the first time on appeal. As authority, counsel cites Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781, 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980), and directs our attention to the exception to our contemporaneous rule relating to a trial court's duty to intervene and correct a serious error. Absent the trial court's intervention, Greene claims that he was highly prejudiced. We disagree that the trial court had a duty to step in under Wicks , because in our view no serious error was made. Indeed, the prosecutor correctly quoted the law. The apposite statute reads: A person sentenced to life imprisonment without parole shall be remanded to the custody of the Department of Correction for imprisonment for the remainder of his life and shall not be released except pursuant to commutation, pardon, or reprieve of the Governor. Ark.Code Ann. § 5-4-606 (Repl.1997). This point has no merit. Greene III, 343 Ark. at 539-540, 37 S.W.3d at 588. Greene now submits that counsel at the sentencing hearing was ineffective for failing to object, and that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to properly frame the Wicks exception. Nonetheless, Greene concedes that the court would have to overrule its decision in Greene III that prosecutor's comments were proper. Greene cites two cases to support his contention that the prosecutor's statements were improper and to persuade this court to overrule its decision in Greene III . In Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154, 114 S.Ct. 2187, 129 L.Ed.2d 133 (1994), the United States Supreme Court found error in the trial court refusing to instruct the jury consistent with the law that a sentence of life imprisonment, as an alternative to the death sentence, did not include the possibility of parole. In Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that it was constitutionally impermissible to rest a death sentence determination made by a sentencer who has been led to believe that the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant's death rests on an appellate court. Here, no such assertion was made by the State These cases are inapposite and do not relate to the State seeking to inform the jury of the full status of the law. In ruling that Greene's claim had no merit, the trial court cited Hill v. State, 347 Ark. 441, 65 S.W.3d 408 (2002). In Hill , appellant claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the trial court's denial of a proffered jury instruction informing the jury that Hill would not be eligible for parole if he were sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This court held: [T]he trial court was on sound ground in rejecting the proffered parole instruction, which contemplated an absolute prohibition against parole, since the governor could always commute a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. Because this court has held that there is no error in refusing an instruction which may have misled or confused the jury, see Townsend v. State, 308 Ark. 266, 824 S.W.2d 821 (1992), counsel would not have been ineffective for failing to raise such an issue on appeal. Id. at 452, 65 S.W.3d at 416. Hill also cited Simmons in support of his argument; however, this court found that the circumstances in Simmons were manifestly not the same as what occurred at resentencing [in Hill ]. Hill 347 Ark. at 452, 65 S.W.3d at 416. In Simmons , the trial court refused to inform the jury that state law prohibited the defendant's release on parole, whereas in Hill , the trial court specifically instructed the jury that, if they did not sentence Hill to death, they would sentence him to life imprisonment without parole. According to this court, [t]he fact that the life imprisonment was without parole was specifically communicated to the jury. Id. The same is true in this case. Given this court's holding in Hill , there was no basis upon which to make an objection. Counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to make a meritless argument. Sanford v. State, 342 Ark. 22, 28-29, 25 S.W.3d 414, 420 (2000). In sum, this court has already ruled on the propriety of the prosecutor's statements, and Greene now unsuccessfully attempts to have that decision reviewed and overruled.