Mark David Johnson, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of Johnson’s Rule 37.1 petition, holding that he failed to establish ineffective assistance concerning counsel’s lack of objection to sentencing testimony, failure to call additional witnesses, or advice regarding his guilty plea. The court concluded that the challenged testimony was relevant to motive and intent, that the proposed witnesses’ testimony was not shown to be admissible or noncumulative, and that the record contradicted Johnson’s allegations that his plea was involuntary or improperly induced. Justice Hart, dissenting, would have reversed and remanded for a new sentencing proceeding because counsel failed to object to uncharged and unproven sexual-abuse allegations.