Crockett v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 04 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 282 Ark. 582,669 S.W.2d 896 |
| Parties | Thomas Edmond CROCKETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 84-14. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Porter & King by Durwood W. King, West Helena, for appellant.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Victra L. Fewell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant, Thomas Edmond Crockett, entered a plea of guilty to the charge of first degree murder. He was sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his life. His sentence is now in execution and he seeks to collaterally attack the conviction by alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and by proceeding under the provisions of A.R.Cr.P. Rule 37. The trial court refused relief. We affirm. Jurisdiction is in this court under Rule 29(1)(e).
The appellant contends that he had ineffective counsel because his counsel did not file either a motion for discovery or a motion to suppress his confession.
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is the right to effective assistance of counsel. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 n. 14, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970). However, the burden rests upon the defendant to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel. United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. ----, ----, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 2046, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). Such a constitutional violation can be shown only by pointing to specific errors made by trial counsel. United States v. Cronic, id., at ----, 104 S.Ct. at 2051. If alleged errors are specified, as they are in this case, they are to be evaluated under the standards enunciated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
In Strickland, the Court, for the first time, elaborated on claims of actual ineffectiveness. The Court held that the benchmark for judging a claim of ineffectiveness is whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result. In order to reach that mark, a defendant must prove that counsel's performance was deficient and the deficient performance was so prejudicial that the result of the trial is not reliable. Strickland v. Washington, id., at ----, 104 S.Ct. at 2064.
The guilty plea was the trial in this case. Irons v. State, 267 Ark. 469, 591 S.W.2d 650 (1980). A defendant whose conviction is based upon a plea of guilty normally will have difficulty in proving any prejudice since his plea rests upon his admission in open court that he did the act with which he is charged. See A.R.Cr.P. Rule 24.6; Reed v. State, 276 Ark. 318, 635 S.W.2d 228 (1982); McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. at 766, 90 S.Ct. at 1446 (1970).
In the case at bar, the appellant, in open court in the original proceeding, admitted that he robbed and murdered James Williams. At the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tolefree v. State
...defendant enters a plea of guilty, the plea is his or her trial. Coleman v. State, 2011 Ark. 308 (per curiam) (citing Crockett v. State, 282 Ark. 582, 669 S.W.2d 896 (1984)). A habeas-corpus proceeding does not afford a convicted defendant an opportunity to retry his case and argue issues t......
-
Wells v. State
...his admission in open court that he did the actwith which he was charged. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (1970); Crockett v. State, 282 Ark. 582, 669 S.W.2d 896 (1984) (citing Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.6); Reed v. State, 276 Ark. 318, 635 S.W.2d 472 (1982). The burden is on the appellant to p......
-
Wilburn v. State, CR–13–750.
...2014 Ark. 273, 2014 WL 2566110 (per curiam). When a defendant enters a plea of guilty, the guilty plea is the trial, Crockett v. State, 282 Ark. 582, 669 S.W.2d 896 (1984), and claims of trial error should be brought at trial. Croston v. State, 2013 Ark. 504, 2013 WL 6327492 (per curiam). A......
-
Carroll v. State, No. CR-19-547
...v. State, 2016 Ark. 386, 502 S.W.3d 524. 4. When a defendant enters a plea of guilty, the guilty plea is the trial. Crockett v. State, 282 Ark. 582, 669 S.W.2d 896 (1984). 5. Carroll makes a vague argument that the prosecutor's misconduct was perpetuated because the trial judge, a former pr......