{
  "id": 1869767,
  "name": "Dewayne FRANKLIN v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Franklin v. State",
  "decision_date": "1987-09-28",
  "docket_number": "CR 87-92",
  "first_page": "225",
  "last_page": "227",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "293 Ark. 225"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "736 S.W.2d 16"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "292 Ark. 33",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1871282
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/292/0033-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 Ark. 404",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1875457
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/289/0404-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 Ark. 473",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1675973
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/262/0473-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 Ark. 582",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1740893
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/282/0582-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 Ark. 310",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1871154
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/292/0310-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "592 S.W.2d 801",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "267 Ark. 507",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1719849
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/267/0507-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 343,
    "char_count": 4867,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.881,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4292197538457575e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6507620714566756
    },
    "sha256": "c7da808c637f7b61ac5c9c446c297688bb143d22ee18f576525d7695b71f45f1",
    "simhash": "1:114b90fb2628d1ac",
    "word_count": 792
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:33:58.592079+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Dewayne FRANKLIN v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nThis case involves a Rule 37 proceeding in which the appellant sought to withdraw his guilty plea to a reduced charge of first degree murder to which he was sentenced to thirty years imprisonment. Appellant appeals the trial court\u2019s denial of his petition, and argues (1) he was denied effective assistance of counsel and (2) the trial court erred in finding a factual basis for appellant\u2019s plea. We find no error, and, therefore, affirm.\nIn addressing appellant\u2019s first argument, we have held that the petitioner has the burden to prove the counsel\u2019s assistance ineffective. Davis v. State, 267 Ark. 507, 592 S.W.2d 801 (1986). In fact, counsel is presumed competent, and the burden of overcoming that presumption rests on the petitioner. Muck v. State, 292 Ark. 310, 730 S.W.2d 214 (1987). More importantly, as appellant\u2019s conviction here is based upon a guilty plea, we have held that a petitioner having entered such a plea normally will have difficulty in proving any prejudice since his plea rests upon his admission in open court that he did the act with which he is charged. Crockett v. State, 282 Ark. 582, 669 S.W.2d 896 (1984).\nAppellant contends that, because of his counsel\u2019s actions (or his failures to act), he pleaded guilty while under a misunderstanding of the law and his rights. See McGee v. State, 262 Ark. 473, 557 S.W.2d 885 (1977). Under these circumstances, he claims his plea was involuntary. Specifically, appellant testified that his attorney, Robert Morehead, was ineffective because (1) Morehead only saw him three times in eight months and failed to reply to appellant\u2019s phone calls and letters; (2) Morehead failed to inform him adequately about the plea bargain, leading appellant to believe he would serve less than thirty years \u2014 perhaps three to five years; and (3) Morehead failed to investigate appellant\u2019s case, including not talking to any of the people allegedly involved in the crime.\nAs was the case in Huff v. State, 289 Ark. 404, 711 S.W.2d 801 (1986), appellant\u2019s claims and testimony were denied by his attorney. Morehead said that he had seen appellant \u201ca half a dozen or more\u201d times. He discussed with appellant the possible risks in going to trial, the most serious being that appellant could receive the death penalty. Considering that risk and the fact that his co-defendants were \u201cpointing their fingers\u201d at appellant, Morehead suggested the alternative of negotiating for a term of years. He said he discussed all of appellant\u2019s options with him. After receiving the prosecutor\u2019s agreement to reduce the charge to first degree murder with a recommendation of a thirty-year sentence, Morehead testified that he then completed a plea statement with the terms in it. The appellant showed no indication that he did not understand the statement and signed it. Morehead also denied advising appellant that he would receive a lighter sentence than thirty years. He further said that he discussed the plea agreement with appellant, who indicated his acceptance of it in front of the trial judge. Finally, concerning appellant\u2019s charge that Morehead failed to talk with the others involved in the crime, Morehead related that those defendants refused to assist him, since they were also facing capital felony charges.\nIn hearing appellant\u2019s and Morehead\u2019s testimony, the trial judge obviously resolved the conflicts in their stories against appellant. Such conflicts in testimony are for the trial judge to resolve, and the judge is not required to believe any witness\u2019s testimony, especially that of the accused since he has the most interest in the outcome of the proceeding. Huff v. State, supra.\nIn his second argument, appellant urges that the trial court posed inadequate inquiries to establish a sufficient factual basis to the murder charge and failed to inform him of the minimum and maximum sentences before the court accepted appellant\u2019s plea. There clearly is no merit to this claim. At the guilty plea hearing, appellant stated he was guilty as an accessory, and then proceeded with a brief recitation of the facts of the case. At the same hearing, the trial court had a written statement previously made by appellant, as well as two witnesses\u2019 proffered testimony, which inculpated appellant. Also, before accepting appellant\u2019s plea, the court fully informed appellant of the minimum and maximum sentences he could receive for first degree murder.\nBecause we are unable to say the trial court\u2019s findings in denying appellant\u2019s petition for relief are clearly against the evidence, we affirm. See Whisenhunt v. State, 292 Ark. 33, 727 S.W.2d 847 (1987).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Murray F. Armstrong, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Clint Miller, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Dewayne FRANKLIN v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 87-92\n736 S.W.2d 16\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 28, 1987\nMurray F. Armstrong, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Clint Miller, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0225-01",
  "first_page_order": 261,
  "last_page_order": 263
}