SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR06-253
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLANT,
VS.
ROSHONDA SMITH,
APPELLEE,
Opinion Delivered February 1, 2007
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COUNTY COURT,
NO. CR. 2002-1892,
HON. WILLARD PROCTOR, JUDGE,
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ANNABELLE CLINTON IMBER, Associate Justice
In this case, the State of Arkansas (“State”) appeals the circuit court’s order granting
Appellee Roshonda Smith’s (“Smith”) Rule 37 petition for postconviction relief. Smith was
convicted by a jury of first-degree battery and sentenced to a term of 180 months in prison
and a fine of $7,500. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on direct
appeal in Smith v. State, 90 Ark. App. 261, 205 S.W.3d 173 (2005).
Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, Smith filed a
petition for postconviction relief in the circuit court, arguing, among other things, that she
was denied effective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to call witnesses on
her behalf during the sentencing phase of the trial. The circuit court held a hearing and then
entered an order finding that Smith was entitled to postconviction relief. The order stated
in relevant part as follows:
2
While [Smith’s trial counsel] may have investigated some evidence to present
during the mitigation phase of the trial, the failure to present any testimony
during the mitigation phase of the trial does not pass constitutional muster.
The jury was not presented with evidence concerning Smith’s background,
education, employment record, mental and emotional stability, family
relationships and the like. The jury was not presented with a fair picture of all
of the factors that should go into the sentencing decision. Therefore, Ms.
Smith’s petition for relief pursuant to Rule 37 is granted to the extent that she
is entitled to re-sentencing.
From that order, the State now appeals. We reverse and remand for the reasons stated below.
Rule 37 postconviction proceedings are civil in nature. State v. Dillard, 338
Ark. 571,