Haywood v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 24 February 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Parties | Leonard HAYWOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 85-130. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Leslie R. Ablondi, Little Rock, for appellant.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Joel Oliver Huggins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant was charged in 1980 with first degree murder and with being an habitual offender, having at least four prior felony convictions. He entered into plea negotiations which culminated in his pleading guilty to second degree murder and being sentenced as an habitual offender to twenty years imprisonment, the minimum sentence for an habitual offender with four prior convictions. At the time appellant entered his plea he stated that he had been found guilty on four occasions.
In 1984 appellant filed a petition in circuit court for a writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the plea. The court treated it as a petition under our post-conviction Rule 37. Petitioner contended that his attorney did not advise him that he was to be sentenced as an habitual offender and misinformed him as to his parole eligibility date. After a hearing at which both counsel and appellant testified, the trial court denied the petition. We affirm.
Appellant's petition is based solely on the contention that counsel did not accurately explain to him when he would be eligible for parole. He does not contend that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of A.R.Cr.P. Rule 24 which sets out the standards governing the court's receipt of a guilty plea. Nor does he contend that he was in fact not guilty. The public defender who represented him during the plea negotiations testified that he explained the effect of being sentenced as an habitual offender, but that he did not make it a practice to advise defendants about parole eligibility.
The two-part test for challenging the effectiveness of counsel is set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The United States Supreme Court has held that the test applies to challenges to guilty pleas. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985). The first part of the test requires the petitioner to show that the counsel's representation was not within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases. Hill v. Lockhart, supra; McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970). A defendant who pleads guilty upon the advice of counsel may not collaterally attack the voluntary and intelligent character of the guilty plea merely by demonstrating that some advice received from counsel was erroneous; rather, the question is whether counsel's advice was competent, taking into account the inherent uncertainty in advising a client about pleading guilty. The United States Constitution does not require the state to furnish the defendant with information about parole eligibility in order for the defendant's plea of guilty to be voluntary, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joyner v. State
...Ark. 410, 2011 WL 4635037 (per curiam); see also Buchheit v. State , 339 Ark. 481, 6 S.W.3d 109 (1999) (per curiam); Haywood v. State , 288 Ark. 266, 704 S.W.2d 168 (1986)." Hooks v. State , 2015 Ark. 258, at 5–6, 465 S.W.3d 416, 420 (per curiam). At the Rule 37 hearing, Joyner testified th......
-
State v. Tejeda-Acosta
...––––, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012). This court has previously followed the dictates of Hill v. Lockhart. See Haywood v. State, 288 Ark. 266, 704 S.W.2d 168 (1986); see also Heard v. State, 2012 Ark. 67, 2012 WL 503884 (per curiam) [427 S.W.3d 678](explaining that cognizable claims......
-
Douglas v. State
...and that prejudice resulted from such errors. Wainwright v. State , 307 Ark. 569, 823 S.W.2d 449 (1992) ; Haywood v. State , 288 Ark. 266, 704 S.W.2d 168 (1986) and Douglas v. State , AR Supreme Court No. CR-17-546 @ p. 7 (March 15, 2018). Defendant was represented by an attorney, not a mag......
-
Polivka v. State
...395, 725 S.W.2d 544, 546 (1987). Defense attorneys are not required to inform their clients about parole eligibility. Haywood v. State, 288 Ark. 266, 704 S.W.2d 168 (1986). Appellant does not assert that the reason he pled guilty was because of the possibility of parole, nor does he assert ......