David Van Winkle, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee — Hart, J., Concurring

Summary

Justice Hart concurs in affirming the denial of Van Winkle's postconviction claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to present an alternative-culpability theory. She rejects the majority's characterization of counsel's conduct as trial strategy absent an evidentiary hearing, but concludes that Van Winkle alleged only conclusory facts and failed to show a reasonable probability of a different result. Justice Baker, concurring separately, would also affirm but would reject the venue claim for lack of factual support and prejudice and deem the structural-error argument unpreserved.