TYROME HARRIS, SR. APPELLANT
STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE
FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST DIVISION [NO.
60CR-14-3398] HONORABLE LEON JOHNSON, JUDGE
Harris, pro se appellant.
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Ashely Priest, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellee.
M. GLOVER, JUDGE.
Harris, Sr., appeals pro se from the trial court's denial
of his petition for postconviction relief. We earlier
remanded the case to the trial court for supplementation of
the record to include the portions the court specifically
relied upon in denying the Rule 37 petition. Harris v.
State, 2017 Ark.App. 464. The record has now been
supplemented, and we are able to address the merits of
Tyrome's appeal. We affirm the denial of postconviction
a hearing on February 8, 2016, Tyrome entered a negotiated
guilty plea to the offense of first-degree battery in case
no. CR-2014-3398, and in exchange, the child-enhancement and
habitual-offender allegations were nolle prossed in another
case (CR-2014-2754). The plea statement signed by Tyrome on
February 8, 2016, included a provision that explained he
could receive a total sentence from five to twenty years in
the state penitentiary and/or a fine of up to $15, 000.
March 7, 2016, Tyrome was sentenced to fifteen years in the
Arkansas Department of Correction, with an additional five
years' suspended imposition of sentence. During the
sentencing hearing, in Tyrome's presence, his counsel
stated in part:
Judge, we entered a plea of guilty to battery first degree
with - - with the habitual dropped. The range is 5 to 20. The
main point I want to make to the Court is, based on his prior
record, any sentence the Court imposes today, he will have to
serve 100 percent. So, whatever the sentence is - - and
I'm asking the Court - - I told the Defendant I would ask
the Court to consider a five-year sentence. He's going to
have to serve day-for-day five years or any sentence the
Court does impose.
. . . .
And I'm asking the Court to show leniency. I'm asking
the Court to consider a five-year sentence of which he will
have to serve day-for-day.
is nothing in the record to indicate that Tyrome expressed
any concern or surprise about his counsel's comments or
that he conveyed to the court his disagreement that serving
100 percent of any sentence imposed was contrary to the
April 22, 2016, Tyrome filed his Rule 37 petition for
postconviction relief. He alleged four bases to support his
contention that his counsel was ineffective: 1) counsel had a
conflict of interest with the alleged victim, 2) the plea
agreement was for no enhancements or habitual offender, 3)
jail-time credit was incorrect, and 4) counsel failed to
advise him that he would be required to serve 100 percent of
his sentence because of a prior felony conviction. In its
order, the trial court denied the petition with no hearing,
finding no basis for postconviction relief
on any of the grounds alleged by Tyrome in his petition. This
pro se appeal followed in which Tyrome contends the trial
court "abused its discretion" when it found trial
counsel was effective. We find no error.
mentioned previously, in his Rule 37 petition, Tyrome alleged
four bases in support of his contention that his trial
counsel was ineffective. In this appeal, he has abandoned all
but one of those bases. He no longer pursues his arguments
that 1) counsel had a conflict of interest with the alleged
victim, 2) the plea agreement was for no enhancements or
habitual offender, and 3) his jail-time credit was incorrect.
However, he does still maintain that his counsel was
ineffective for allegedly failing to advise Tyrome that he
would be required to serve 100 percent of his sentence
because of a prior felony conviction, which has been his
major contention throughout. In addition, Tyrome has added
some constitutional arguments in his appeal to our court that
were not raised in his Rule 37 petition-arguments based on
the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments involving due
process and cruel and unusual punishment. Because Tyrome has
abandoned all but one of the arguments he pursued in his Rule
37 petition (and because the constitutional arguments he
raises in this appeal were not presented to the trial court
and therefore were not properly preserved), we address only
Tyrome's argument alleging ineffective assistance of
counsel for failure to advise him that he would have to serve
100 percent of his sentence.
rejecting the "failure-to-advise" argument below,
the trial court ...