Opinion ID: 3163612
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory/Charging Error

Text: First, Wood asserts that the circuit court erred in denying Wood’s Rule 37.1 petition because defense counsel was ineffective when she did not object to the charging information on the ground that Wood was charged with violating a statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14124(a)(3), which Wood alleges was not in effect when he committed the offense. The record demonstrates that the crime was alleged to have been committed on or around March 27, 2013. Wood alleges that the subsection he was charged under, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14124(a)(3), was not in effect because the legislature amended Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-124 in Act 1044 of 2013. Wood’s argument fails because the substantive law in effect on the date the crime was committed controls. See Berry v. State, 278 Ark. 578, 582, 647 S.W.2d 453, 456 (1983). Here, the crime occurred on March 27, 2013, the amended legislation did not go into effect until August 2013. Thus, the amendment has no bearing on Wood’s case. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-124. Counsel is not ineffective for failing to make a meritless objection. Tubbs v. State, 2009 Ark. 249, 370 S.W.3d 157. Therefore, we affirm the circuit court on this first point. 4 Cite as 2015 Ark. 477