Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 08 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | Nos. CR,s. CR |
| Citation | 283 Ark. 363,676 S.W.2d 738 |
| Parties | Harvey Dale JONES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Arkansas, Respondent. 83-52, CR 84-165. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Harvey Dale Jones, pro se.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Marci L. Talbot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for respondent.
Petitioner Harvey Dale Jones and co-defendant Rickey Moore were each found guilty by a jury of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of attempted capital murder. Each man was sentenced to terms of 15 years imprisonment on each count of aggravated robbery and 13 years for attempted capital murder. On appeal, we reversed the convictions for attempted capital murder but affirmed the convictions for aggravated robbery. Moore & Jones v. State, 280 Ark. 222, 656 S.W.2d 698 (1983). Petitioner Jones now seeks permission to proceed in circuit court for postconviction relief pursuant to A.R.Cr.P. Rule 37.
Petitioner alleges that the witnesses at his trial were unable to identify him conclusively and that they gave conflicting, inconsistent testimony regarding their identification of him. The allegations are essentially an attack on the sufficiency of the evidence adduced at trial. As such, the assertions are not grounds for relief under Rule 37. Challenges to the weight of the evidence are direct attacks on the judgment which must be made at trial and on direct appeal, not in a petition for postconviction relief. McCroskey v. State, 278 Ark. 156, 644 S.W.2d 271 (1983).
Petitioner next alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to "attempt or to direct cross-examine state witness Lonetta Chism." Since petitioner does not say what counsel should have asked the witness, we cannot assess whether there was any prejudice to him. Petitioner also alleges that counsel had a conflict of interest, but he again fails to explain the nature of the conflict or how he was prejudiced by it. Allegations without factual support and a showing of prejudice do not warrant an evidentiary hearing. Jeffers v. State, 280 Ark. 458, 658 S.W.2d 869 (1983).
With this petition we are also considering petitioner's attempt to appeal the denial of a Rule 37 petition by the trial court. In May, 1984, after his conviction had been affirmed on appeal, petitioner filed a postconviction petition in circuit court. The petition was denied pursuant to Rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. State
... ... Brents v. State, 285 Ark. 199, 686 S.W.2d 395 (1985). The burden is on the petitioner to provide facts to support his claims of prejudice. Jones v. State, 283 Ark. 363, 767 S.W.2d 738 (1984) ... There is no indication whether this DNA evidence would have been exculpatory or incriminating. In addition, appellant was not convicted of capital-felony murder but was found guilty of the lesser included offense of first-degree murder. The ... ...
-
Burnett v. State
... ... [293 Ark. 306] The petitioner gives no other factual support for her allegations with regard to the arguments. The petitioner has not made the slightest showing of prejudice. The burden is on the petitioner to provide facts to support his claims of prejudice. Jones v. State, 283 Ark. 363, 676 S.W.2d 738 (1984) ... The petitioner claims her counsel was ineffective for failing to ask for a psychiatric evaluation. She states that her counsel and the prosecutor knew she had a nervous breakdown in late 1983. The petitioner who asserts her ... ...
-
Mitchell v. State, CR
... ... Gilbert v. State, 282 Ark. 504, 669 S.W.2d 454, 455 (1984). And that bare allegations, without factual support do not justify an evidentiary hearing. Blakely v. State, 283 Ark. 138, 671 S.W.2d 183 (1984); Jones v. State, 283 Ark. 363, 676 S.W.2d 738 (1984) ... The petition does not give the addresses of these individuals, nor tell us how they knew Mitchell, nor even that they would testify Mitchell was in Seattle on June 1, 1982 as alleged. For that matter, the petition does not even ... ...
-
Cotton v. State, CR
... ... Such attacks cannot be brought under Rule 37. Sanchez v. State, 290 Ark. 39, 716 S.W.2d 747 (1986) (per curiam); Hickey v. State, 287 Ark. 197, 697 S.W.2d 118 (1985) (per curiam); Pride v. State, 285 Ark. 89, 684 S.W.2d 819 (1985) (per curiam); Jones v. State, 283 Ark. 363, 676 S.W.2d 738 (1984) (per curiam), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1219, 105 S.Ct. 1204, 84 L.Ed.2d 347 (1985); Guy v. State, 282 Ark. 424, 668 S.W.2d 952 (1984); Williams v. State, 280 Ark. 543, 659 S.W.2d 948 (1983) (per curiam); Pitcock v. State, 279 Ark. 174, 649 S.W.2d 393 ... ...