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

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of Van Winkle’s postconviction petition without a hearing. It held that counsel had presented the actual-innocence theory, that the decision not to seek a venue change did not establish deficient performance or prejudice, and that although counsel was deficient in failing to object to the firearm-enhancement instruction, Van Winkle could not show prejudice. The court further held that the structural-error argument was unpreserved and that the record conclusively showed no entitlement to relief. Justice Hart, concurring, questioned the majority’s reliance on trial strategy but agreed that Van Winkle failed to establish prejudice; Justice Baker, concurring, would affirm on the basis of conclusory allegations and lack of preservation.