Walden v. State

Cite as 2014 Ark. 10
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-12-669
Opinion Delivered January 16, 2014
LARRY EUGENE WALDEN PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE
APPELLANT SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT, FORT SMITH DISTRICT
v. [66CR-09-676]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE J. MICHAEL
APPELLEE FITZHUGH, JUDGE
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PER CURIAM
In 2011, appellant Larry Eugene Walden was found guilty by a jury of aggravated robbery
and sentenced as a habitual offender to a term of 720 months’ imprisonment. The Arkansas
Court of Appeals affirmed. Walden v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 307, ___ S.W.3d ___.
Subsequently, appellant timely filed in the trial court a verified pro se petition for
postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2011). The trial
court denied the petition without a hearing, and appellant brings this appeal. Appellant contends
on appeal that the trial court’s order was inadequate, and the State in its brief concedes that the
matter must be remanded for a proper order. Upon review of the order, we agree, and the order
is reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court so that the court may enter an order that
complies with Rule 37.3(a). If the order is adverse to appellant and appellant desires review of
the order by this court, he will be required to perfect an appeal in accordance with the prevailing
rules of procedure.
Cite as 2014 Ark. 10
In the Rule 37.1 petition, appellant raised multiple allegations of ineffective assistance of
counsel. The claims were either not addressed by the trial court in its order or were only
superficially addressed. Where no evidentiary hearing is held on a Rule 37.1 petition, the trial
court has an obligation to provide written findings specifying any parts of the files or record that
are relied on to sustain conclusively the trial court’s decision that the petitioner is entitled to no
relief. Moten v. State, 2013 Ark. 503; Riley v. State, 2011 Ark. 394 (per curiam); Sandoval-Vega v.
State, 2011 Ark. 393, 384 S.W.3d 508 (per curiam); Camacho v. State, 2011 Ark. 235 (per curiam);
Davenport v. State, 2011 Ark. 105 (per curiam); see also Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.3. This court may
affirm the denial of a Rule 37.1 petition, regardless of the adequacy of the order, if we can
determine from the record that the petition was wholly without merit or that the allegations in
the petition are such that it is conclusive on the face of the petition that no relief is warranted.
Riley, 2011 Ark. 394; Sandoval-Vega, 2011 Ark. 393, 384 S.W.3d 508; Davenport, 2011 Ark. 105.
Here, it is evident that sufficient written findings by the trial court are required to conclusively
show that the appellant was entitled to no relief.
Reversed and remanded.
Larry Walden, pro se appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
2