Harmon v. State, CR-18-659
Citation | 588 S.W.3d 432,2019 Ark. App. 492 |
Decision Date | 30 October 2019 |
Docket Number | No. CR-18-659,CR-18-659 |
Parties | Henry A. HARMON, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee |
Court | Court of Appeals of Arkansas |
Henry Harmon, pro se appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Adam Jackson, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
Henry A. Harmon appeals the Pulaski County Circuit Court's order denying his petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 37.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure (2018). Harmon argues in five points on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective and that the circuit court erred in its rulings. We affirm.
Harmon was convicted in the Pulaski County Circuit Court of first-degree murder, two counts of aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault and was sentenced to a total of 105 years' imprisonment. He appealed, and this court affirmed his conviction. See Harmon v. State , 2014 Ark. App. 70, 2014 WL 333497. Harmon filed a petition for review with the Arkansas Supreme Court, which granted the petition, vacated this court's opinion, reversed, and remanded to the circuit court, holding that the circuit court had abused its discretion by excluding DNA evidence. See Harmon v. State , 2014 Ark. 391, 441 S.W.3d 891.
Harmon was tried again on December 8–9, 2015, but it ended in a mistrial. On March 8, 2017, Harmon entered into a negotiated plea in which he pled guilty to amended charges of manslaughter and robbery and received consecutive sentences of five years' and forty years' imprisonment, respectively. He filed a timely pro se petition for postconviction relief under Rule 37, arguing that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. After a hearing, the circuit court filed an order on May 29, 2018, in which it denied the Rule 37 petition. The circuit court stated in its analysis:
From this order, Harmon filed a timely notice of appeal, and this appeal followed.
We do not reverse the denial of postconviction relief unless the circuit court's findings are clearly erroneous. Johnson v. State , 2018 Ark. 6, at 2, 534 S.W.3d 143, 146. A finding is clearly erroneous when the appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that the circuit court made a mistake. Id.
Davis v. State , 2018 Ark. App. 540, at 2–4, 564 S.W.3d 283, 286–87.
Harmon argues that the circuit court abused its discretion when it excused Hugh Finkelstein, prosecutor, and Robby Golden, defense counsel, from testifying at the Rule 37 hearing. Harmon alleged that Finkelstein had committed a Brady violation by withholding the medical records of the State's witness in the two trials held before he negotiated a guilty plea. See Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Harmon also claims that Golden violated his constitutional rights when acting as his trial counsel in the trial(s) before the negotiated plea deal. He contends that Golden filed a direct appeal without his consent or notification and that Golden failed to challenge the sufficiency of evidence to support the convictions.
Harmon did not include his arguments regarding Finkelstein or Golden in his petition below. Rule 37.1(a) requires that all grounds for relief must be raised in the initial pleading. Also, claims against Finkelstein and Golden are not related to the guilty pleas; thus, these claims are not cognizable in a Rule 37 proceeding. See Moss v. State , 2010 Ark. 284, 2010 WL 2210933 ( ); Bryant v. State , 323 Ark. 130, 913 S.W.2d 257 (1996) ( ).
Harmon argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for his failure to investigate sentencing guidelines, sentencing enhancement, and prior criminal convictions to ensure Harmon's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was honored within guidelines of the law. He complains that the time he had served—1,888 days—was not applied...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Myers v. State
...Jamett , supra. Conclusory statements that counsel was ineffective cannot be the basis for postconviction relief. Harmon v. State , 2019 Ark. App. 492, 588 S.W.3d 432. Myers asserts that his counsel did not ask if he was pleading nolo contendere because he was guilty of the offenses. He cla......
- Dac Tat Pham v. Anh Thuy Nguyen, CV-18-843
-
Harmon v. Noel-Emsweller
... ... aggravated assault and was sentenced to 105 years' ... imprisonment. See Harmon v. State, 2014 Ark.App. 70 ... He appealed, and the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed his ... conviction. Id. We reviewed the court of ... appeals' ... ...