Court Opinion

ID: 7823318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 18:01:25.881417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:47.808720
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I think petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his request for Rule 37 relief. All parties agree that Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), is controlling. The real issue is whether sufficient grounds are alleged which, if proven, constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. As an alibi defense, the defendant alleges that he was in the State of Washington on the date the crime was committed. He also alleges that he gave his appointed defense counsel the names and addresses of several people in Washington who could verify his presence in that state on the date in question. No fair-minded person could doubt that if witnesses testified that petitioner was over 2000 miles away at the time of the crime, that this proof would be much stronger than if witnesses simply testified that he was not in Little Rock at the time of the crime. With the latter testimony, all the witnesses were saying was that he was not in their presence when the crime was committed. In the present case it is important to note that the other persons convicted of this crime testified that petitioner was not with them when they committed the aggravated robbery of Godfather’s Pizza. The appointed defense attorney apparently made no attempt to obtain an out of state subpoena for the Washington witnesses. Since he had the names and addresses of several of these witnesses, it was reasonable to expect him to try to get at least one witness present for the trial. Failure to do so, under the circumstances of this case, amounts to ineffective assistance as defined in Strickland. There is no way of determining whether the allegations are true unless the trial court gives the petitioner a chance to prove his allegations and has the opportunity to examine the allegations. I would grant the petition.