{
  "id": 1935000,
  "name": "Anthony MONTS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Monts v. State",
  "decision_date": "1993-04-19",
  "docket_number": "CR 92-1338",
  "first_page": "547",
  "last_page": "550",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "312 Ark. 547"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "851 S.W.2d 432"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "296 Ark. 385",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1892720
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/296/0385-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 Ark. 586",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1891370
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/297/0586-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 Ark. 312",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1888328
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/299/0312-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 Ark. 412",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1888331
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/299/0412-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 Ark. 210",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1880021
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/283/0210-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 286,
    "char_count": 3789,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.882,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4769427090825723e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6603695813925832
    },
    "sha256": "112d6a6758c662a26755a69e40bdf0efa1a6f6579f48fdeb77b5dddc50df0186",
    "simhash": "1:aa189ccf6daa193e",
    "word_count": 605
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:48:25.249850+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Anthony MONTS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nAppellant was convicted of the crime of rape and then pled guilty to the charges of burglary and criminal attempt to commit rape. He subsequently filed a Rule 37 motion seeking post-conviction relief alleging he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied appellant\u2019s petition, and appellant now appeals that ruling. Appellant argues that his trial attorney, Bill McArthur, improperly failed to file a timely speedy-trial motion, asking appellant\u2019s charges be dismissed. He further claims McArthur obtained trial continuances that appellant never approved. Neither of appellant\u2019s arguments has merit.\nThe short answer to appellant\u2019s first argument is that, while Mr. McArthur did not ask that appellant\u2019s charges be dismissed on speedy-trial grounds, appellant did file such a motion pro se, and the trial court denied his motion. Appellant appealed the trial court\u2019s ruling to the court of appeals, and in an unpublished opinion, the appellate court held the appellant had not been deprived of a speedy trial. Monts v. State, CACR 91-242, opinion delivered on June 17, 1992. Thus, in this Rule 37 proceeding, appellant has shown no prejudice which has resulted from his trial attorney\u2019s failure to file a speedy-trial motion. Knappenberger v. State, 283 Ark. 210, 672 S.W.2d 54 (1984). Appellant raised the speedy-trial issue he now says his attorney failed to raise, and he lost on that issue both at trial and on appeal. Rule 37 does not provide a means to relitigate a matter decided on appeal. Spivey v. State, 299 Ark. 412, 773 S.W.2d 446 (1989).\nWe also point out that the court of appeals\u2019 decision that appellant\u2019s speedy-trial claim was without merit lends support to the presumption that Mr. McArthur acted within the bounds of reasonable professional assistance. Spivey, 299 Ark. 412, 773 S.W.2d 446; Cox v. State, 299 Ark. 312, 772 S.W.2d 336 (1989). Counsel cannot be found ineffective when he or she fails to make an argument which has no merit. Stanley v. State, 297 Ark. 586, 764 S.W.2d 426 (1989). In sum, even if appellant\u2019s counsel had filed a motion to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds, such a motion would have been unavailing.\nAppellant\u2019s next argument concerns whether his trial attorney, McArthur, obtained continuances in appellant\u2019s absence and without his approval. Both the appellant and McArthur testified on this issue, and McArthur related that he had discussed all the continuances obtained with both the appellant and his mother, and appellant was present for all such requests except one. The trial court\u2019s docket sheet supports McArthur\u2019s testimony concerning appellant\u2019s appearances. It is well established that the credibility of the witnesses is a matter for the factfinder, Ham v. State, 296 Ark. 385, 757 S.W.2d 932 (1988), and in this case, the trial court obviously believed Mr. McArthur\u2019s testimony rather than the appellant\u2019s.\nFinally, we reiterate the rule that matters of trial tactics and strategy, which can be a matter of endless debate by experienced advocates, are not grounds for post-conviction relief. Knappenberger, 283 Ark. 210, 672 S.W.2d 54. Here, McArthur testified that sources had informed him that the victim in this case was \u201cshaky,\u201d and if given enough time, the victim might move from the state and refuse to testify for the prosecution. We cannot say here that counsel\u2019s tactical decisions to obtain continuances denied appellant a fair trial. Id.\nFor the above reasons, we affirm.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: Thomas B. Devine, III, Deputy Public Defender.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Catherine Templeton, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Anthony MONTS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 92-1338\n851 S.W.2d 432\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 19, 1993\nWilliam R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: Thomas B. Devine, III, Deputy Public Defender.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Catherine Templeton, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0547-01",
  "first_page_order": 577,
  "last_page_order": 580
}