Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; April 20, 1987; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Charles Philyaw was convicted in 1981 of aggravated robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment and a $12,000 fine. After a lengthy period without action on his appeal, a federal court ordered the State of Arkansas to either grant a belated appeal or retry him. The state chose the former, and the appeal was granted. Philyaw raised two points for reversal: insufficient evidence to support the conviction and ineffective assistance of counsel.
The court found the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction, citing both direct and circumstantial evidence. Officer Charles Lambert and his colleagues observed Fabian Costillo approaching the Cabana Liquor Store shortly before the robbery occurred. The store’s employee, Mary Nell Clingan, testified that a man, later identified as Costillo, robbed her at gunpoint and described the robbery's circumstances, including the involvement of cash and a bank bag. Clingan also identified Philyaw as the husband of a former employee, noting his familiarity with the store's operations, although she did not see him during the robbery.
Subsequently, Officer Alen Craig encountered Philyaw and Costillo in a vehicle matching the robbery's description. During the encounter, Philyaw brandished a gun, leading to a struggle and shots fired by Craig. Evidence linking Philyaw to the crime included ownership of the vehicle and possession of a bank bag and cash. The defense did not present any evidence, and the court found no errors in the trial proceedings, affirming the conviction.
The court typically does not address Rule 37 issues in direct appeals from convictions, as established in Knappenberger v. State. However, an exception was made in this case due to a federally mandated belated appeal following Philyaw's post-conviction efforts initiated in 1984, which included a 39-page Rule 37 petition that the trial court denied in July 1985. The appellant raised 11 points for reversal related to ineffective assistance of counsel, but the court found these claims too generalized and non-specific. No objections were made regarding misstatements about burdens of proof, improper redirect examination, or irrelevant testimony concerning a 'shoot-out.' Furthermore, claims that the counsel was ineffective for not moving for a directed verdict were deemed unmeritorious as such a failure is not cognizable under Rule 37. The court emphasized that counsel is presumed effective, and to prove otherwise, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the trial outcome would likely have been different but for counsel's errors, as per Strickland v. Washington. The appellant's allegations did not satisfy these requirements. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and the order denying Rule 37 relief were affirmed.
