FROM THE CRAWFORD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. NOS. 17CR-12-35 &
17CR-12-417. HONORABLE GARY COTTRELL, JUDGE.
Delmar Pigg, Pro se, appellant.
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Christian Harris, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellee.
2013, appellant Earl Delmar Pigg was found guilty of eleven
counts of rape of a victim who was less than fourteen years
of age and one count of interference with custody. Pigg
received consecutive life sentences for all eleven counts of
rape and an additional term of 120 months' imprisonment,
also to be served consecutively to the life sentences, for
the interference charge. This court affirmed the judgment.
Pigg v. State, 2014 Ark. 433, 444 S.W.3d 863. Pigg
filed in the
trial court a petition for postconviction relief under
Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2015). Following an
evidentiary hearing, the court denied relief, considering
both the original petition and a supplemental petition, and
Pigg brings this appeal. We affirm the order denying
court will not reverse a trial court's decision granting
or denying postconviction relief unless it is clearly
erroneous. Houghton v. State, 2015 Ark. 252, 464
S.W.3d 922. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although
there is evidence to support it, the appellate court, after
reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
Id. Pigg alleges seven points for
first point on appeal, Pigg contends that the trial court
failed to provide the findings of fact and conclusions of law
required under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.3. When
the trial court does not summarily deny relief on a Rule 37.1
petition without a hearing under Rule 37.3(a), the court must
determine the issues and make written findings of fact and
conclusions of law with respect to those issues. Ark. R.
Crim. P. 37.3(c). This court has consistently remanded when
the trial court failed to enter any written findings
following a hearing, and we remand when the findings provided
are not adequate for our review. Magness v. State,
2015 Ark. 185, 461 S.W.3d 337 (per curiam).
the trial court provides written findings on at least one,
but less than all of the claims in the petition, however, the
appellant has an obligation to obtain a ruling on any omitted
issues to be considered on appeal. Id. Any claim on
which the appellant failed to obtain a ruling is procedurally
barred from our review. Fisher v. State, 364 Ark.
216, 217 S.W.3d 117 (2005). The trial court provided written
findings. Although Pigg contends that the trial court's
findings on the issues were conclusory, as we discuss in turn
below, the court's findings are adequate for our review
of those remaining issues that were addressed by the trial
court and raised on appeal.
other points raised in Pigg's brief-in-chief address his
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. 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). Rasul v.
State, 2015 Ark. 118, 458 S.W.3d 722. 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.
Mister v. State, 2014 Ark. 446. Unless a petitioner
makes both showings, the allegations do not meet the
benchmark for assessing a claim of ineffective assistance.
Houghton, 2015 Ark. 252, 464 S.W.3d 922.
is presumed effective, and allegations without factual
substantiation are insufficient to overcome that presumption.
Henington v. State, 2012 Ark. 181, 403 S.W.3d 55. A
petitioner, in claiming deficiency, must show that
counsel's representation fell below an objective standard
of reasonableness, and this court must indulge in a strong
presumption that counsel's ...