Court Opinion

ID: 9682705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:15:03.26603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:40.788217
License: Public Domain

Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice, dissenting. There is no reason to grant an evidentiary hearing in this case. Even though an attorney may have an ethical duty to communicate the offer of a negotiated plea to his client, it is not ineffective assistance of counsel under Rule 37 to fail to do so if the petitioner is subsequently afforded a fair trial and found guilty. There is no right to negotiate a plea agreement and the trial court is under no obligation to accept such a plea even if the prosecutor and the accused have agreed to it. To require the trial court to do so in this case is contrary to the Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Rule 25.3. Rule 37 was intended to assure the accused a fair trial or competent advice if he chooses to plead guilty. Although ineffective assistance of counsel can be predicated on the failure to render competent advice as to a plea of guilty, Mitchell v. State, 271 Ark. 512, 609 S.W.2d 333 (1980), oncea trial has occurred, the standard for reviewing the effectiveness of counsel is whether the petitioner was afforded a fair trial. Perry v. State, 279 Ark. 213, 650 S.W.2d 241 (1983); Blackmon v. State, 274 Ark. 202, 623 S.W.2d 184 (1981). The mere fact that a petitioner denies having been apprised of a plea bargain should not be allowed to obscure the ultimate fact that the petitioner was accorded a fair trial, found guilty and sentenced. Since the case was affirmed on appeal and we find no cause to grant postconviction relief on grounds related to the trial, it is incongruous that the jury’s valid finding of guilt or the sentence imposed should be placed in question because a pre-trial plea bargain may not have been communicated. Hays, J., joins in this dissent.