Jimmy Don Wooten v. State of Arkansas — Hannah, J., Dissenting

Summary

Hannah, C.J., dissenting, would deny the petition to recall the mandate because Wooten had counsel, litigated his mitigation claim, and was not effectively left without counsel. The dissent argues that the court's inherent authority to recall a mandate cannot be governed by a generalized three-factor test and that the absence of verification did not establish a breakdown requiring a new postconviction proceeding. Justice Brown, concurring, would recall the mandate based additionally on the deficient investigation and presentation of mitigation evidence by trial and postconviction counsel.