Jimmy Don Wooten v. State of Arkansas — Brown, J., Concurring

Summary

The concurrence would recall the mandate because Wooten never received a meaningful postconviction opportunity to present substantial mitigation evidence concerning mental impairment, brain injury, and severe childhood abuse. It reasons that both trial counsel and Rule 37 counsel failed to investigate and present this evidence, producing a breakdown in the postconviction process and preventing meaningful review of the ineffective-assistance claim. Chief Justice Hannah, dissenting, would deny relief because Wooten had counsel, litigated the mitigation issue, and was not entitled to a second Rule 37 proceeding merely because counsel selected a different trial strategy.