Douglas v. State
Decision Date | 07 March 2019 |
Docket Number | No. CR-18-597,CR-18-597 |
Citation | 567 S.W.3d 483,2019 Ark. 57 |
Parties | Courtney Jerrel DOUGLAS, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Jeff Rosenzweig, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Darnisa Evans Johnson, Deputy Att'y Gen., and Christian Harris, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
Appellant Courtney Jerrel Douglas appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. Douglas was convicted of first-degree murder and possession of a firearm and was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment for his murder conviction plus an additional fifteen years' imprisonment for the use of a firearm. For his possession-of-a-firearm charge, Douglas was sentenced to forty years' imprisonment and a fine of $ 15,000. Douglas's probation was also revoked on three controlled-substance offenses, and he was sentenced to a total of fifty years' imprisonment to be served consecutively to his other sentences. Douglas's convictions and sentences were affirmed in Douglas v. State , 2017 Ark. 70, 511 S.W.3d 852 ( Douglas I ). In Douglas v. State , 2018 Ark. 89, 540 S.W.3d 685 ( Douglas II ), Douglas appealed the denial of his petition for postconviction relief under Rule 37. The following facts relevant to the present appeal were set out in Douglas II :
Douglas's convictions and sentences stem from an altercation between the victim, Terrance Billings, and Douglas. On August 5, 2015, Douglas and Billings got into a verbal altercation at Douglas's home. After the altercation, Billings returned to his home. After Billings had left to go home, Douglas retrieved a firearm and drove to Billings's home. Jennifer Henry, Billings's girlfriend, testified that Douglas came to their home uninvited, and when she answered the door, D.H., Jennifer's fourteen-year-old son, testified that when Douglas came to their home, he witnessed Billings and Douglas as they "tussled" on the porch. D.H. further testified that Billings was inside the home when Douglas began shooting Billings. John Henry, Jennifer's father, testified that he witnessed Douglas and Billings scuffling on the porch as well. John further testified that it looked like Billings had Douglas in a headlock and Jennifer was standing behind them. Sergeant Jim Sanders with the Union County Sheriff's Office testified that upon arriving at the crime scene, it was his duty to immediately begin taking photographs. Sergeant Sanders testified that there did not appear to be any blood, tissue, or other bodily fluids on the porch or door. However, inside the threshold, but not on the threshold itself, there appeared to be bodily fluid. Further, Sergeant Sanders testified that there was no indication that Billings's body had been moved. Chief Investigator Ricky Roberts, also with the Union County Sheriff's Office, testified that there was no indication of blood on the porch, and based on the evidence, it was apparent that Billings was shot while standing inside the house.
2018 Ark. 89, at 2–3, 540 S.W.3d 685, 687.
In his petition for postconviction relief, Douglas argued that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present the proper jury instructions on (1) justification and (2) extreme-emotional-disturbance manslaughter. In Douglas II , we affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. Specifically, we affirmed the circuit court's denial of postconviction relief with regard to the justification jury instruction. However, as to the extreme-emotional-disturbance-manslaughter jury instruction, we held that the circuit court failed to make written findings in accordance with Rule 37.3(a) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, we reversed and remanded for written findings in compliance with Rule 37.3(a). On April 6, 2018, the circuit court entered its written order denying Douglas's petition without a hearing:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rickman v. State
...consideration. This is why we require a jury instruction where there is "any rational basis" for giving it. 2019 Ark. 57, 15-16, 567 S.W.3d 483, 494 (Hart, J., dissenting). To refuse an appropriate jury instruction is to invade the province of the jury. It subverts the design and function o......
-
Dennis v. State
...proceeding unless the files and record of the case conclusively show that a prisoner is entitled to no relief. Douglas v. State , 2019 Ark. 57, 567 S.W.3d 483. If the files and record show that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the trial court is required to make written findings to......
-
Furlow v. State
... ... nor was there a physical fight. Like Bragg, Furlow did not ... make that claim in either of his three statements to officers ... or in his penalty-phase testimony. See also Boyle , ... 363 Ark. at 362, 214 S.W.3d at 253; Douglas v ... State , 2019 Ark. 57, 567 S.W.3d 483. It is reasonable to ... believe that had such events occurred, he would have made ... them known to officers to justify his conduct ... Given ... the above facts and the law, the circuit court did not act ... improvidently, ... ...
-
Gentry v. State
...or "passion" must have been "caused by a provocation apparently sufficient to make the passion irresistible." Douglas v. State , 2019 Ark. 57, at 8, 567 S.W.3d 483, 490. The evidence falls short of that here.Consider the facts presented at trial. This evidence showed that Gentry went to Gam......