David Van Winkle, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of Van Winkle’s Rule 37 petition without a hearing. It held that counsel pursued the actual-innocence theory Van Winkle proposed, made a reasonable strategic choice not to seek a change of venue, and caused no prejudice by failing to object to the firearm-enhancement instruction, even though that failure was deficient. The court also held that the freestanding structural-error claim was not preserved and that the record conclusively showed no entitlement to relief. Justice Baker and Justice Hart concurred separately, challenging aspects of the majority’s reliance on trial strategy while agreeing that Van Winkle failed to establish prejudice or preserve the structural-error claim.