Court of Appeals Reverse Hill Circuit Court Case
The Arkansas Court of Appeals released opinions last Wednesday, including an appeal from the Howard County Circuit Court. The appellant, 49 year old Rodney B. Hill of Nashville, plead guilty to residential burglary and was sentenced to 15 years in the Arkansas Department of Corrections pursuant to a sentencing order entered on February 7, 2017.
On April 24, 2017, Hill filed a pro se Rule 37 petition seeking post-conviction relief from his sentence. The circuit court held a hearing on Hill’s petition on August 8, 2018, and subsequently entered an order denying the petition on September 4, 2018. Hill filed his pro se notice of appeal on August 27, 2018.
Judge Meredith B. Switzer, along with other concurring judges, released an opinion that the case be reversed and remanded to the circuit court to determine the issues that were before it and to make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to those issues pursuant to Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure.
In his Rule 37 petition, Hill asserted that his plea was not made voluntarily and intelligently and that it was entered without the effective assistance of counsel. Hill raised a least nine arguments in support of these two contentions. Following the hearing, the circuit court entered an order denying Hill’s petition “based upon [the]sworn testimony of Rodney B. Hill, and based upon the sworn testimony of witness subject to cross-examination,” because “Petitioner did not request relief that can be granted, did not present evidence sufficient to grant such relief, and for all the reasons set forth on the record[.]” The order did not reference the two bases for Hill’s petition or any of the arguments in support thereof. The order did not include any factual findings resulting from the hearing or any conclusions of law relating to any facts.
The Judge’s opinion stated that written findings are required so that the appellate court can “effectively review the evidence and the court’s reasoning to determine if the court’s conclusions were clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.
