McClinton v. State, CR–17–725

• Decision Date: 12 April 2018
• Docket Number: No. CR–17–725,CR–17–725
• Citation: 542 S.W.3d 859
• Parties: Edmond MCCLINTON, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

542 S.W.3d 859

Edmond MCCLINTON, Appellant
v.
STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR–17–725

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered April 12, 2018

JOHN DAN KEMP, Chief Justice

This court granted appellant Edmond McClinton's request to proceed with an appeal of the denial of his petition under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2017). McClinton filed the motions before us in which he seeks permission from this court to include in the addendum of his brief a portion of the trial court's docket listing, a document filed in district court and an appendix. We need not consider the motion because it is clear that McClinton's Rule 37.1 petition did not include a meritorious claim for relief, and the trial court did not clearly err in denying postconviction relief. The appeal is dismissed, and the motions are moot.

McClinton filed his petition requesting relief under Rule 37 and requesting error coram nobis relief. The trial court originally dismissed the petition because it found the petition was untimely under the Rule and because it did not have jurisdiction to entertain a petition for a writ of error coram nobis when this court had not granted permission to McClinton to seek the writ. On appeal, this court reversed and remanded in part, holding that the circuit court clerk was to file-mark the petition as timely under Rule 37, and we affirmed the trial court's dismissal to the extent that McClinton sought the writ. McClinton v. State , 2016 Ark. 461, 506 S.W.3d 227 (per curiam).

On remand, the trial court considered McClinton's claims in the petition for Rule 37 relief.¹ McClinton alleged that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to convict him because he did not receive a preliminary, first appearance, "bind-over," or probable-cause hearing or there were irregularities concerning those hearings; because his arrest was invalid in that there was no warrant or probable cause; and because he was not indicted by a grand jury. He alleged that he had not received due process as a result of these errors, that there was insufficient evidence to convict him, and that his trial attorneys were

542 S.W.3d 862

ineffective because the due-process errors concerning his arrest and detention were not raised.

Based on its review of the record, the trial court denied and dismissed the petition. In the order, the trial court set out its findings, which included determinations that

McClinton's claims that the evidence was insufficient were not cognizable in the proceedings, that any trial errors concerning his arrest or first appearance hearing would not support relief under Rule 37, that McClinton was properly charged by criminal information rather than by a grand jury indictment and that McClinton had failed to show either deficient performance or prejudice to establish ineffective assistance of counsel.

McClinton filed his timely notice of appeal, but the record was not submitted within the time allowed under our rules. The record that was submitted by the circuit clerk also failed to include McClinton's petition addressed by the order. In addition to granting McClinton's motion to proceed with the appeal, this court directed the circuit clerk to provide a supplemental record with that document. The supplemental record has been received, and McClinton has filed his brief.

An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief will not be permitted to go forward when it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Ortega v. State , 2017 Ark. 365, 533 S.W.3d 68. This court does not reverse the denial of postconviction relief unless the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous. Johnson v. State , 2018 Ark. 6, 534 S.W.3d 143. A finding is clearly erroneous when the appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake. Id.

Our standard for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims is the two-prong analysis set forth in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Lee v. State , 2017 Ark. 337, 532 S.W.3d 43. The benchmark for judging a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be

"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." Strickland , 466 U.S. at 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner must show that (1) counsel's performance was deficient and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Lee , 2017 Ark. 337, 532 S.W.3d 43. Unless a petitioner makes both showings, the allegations do not meet the benchmark on review for granting relief on a...