Omar v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 08-547
Opinion Delivered
June 4, 2009
PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY,
CR 2005-491, HON. GARY R.
COTTRELL, JUDGE
SHAHID OMAR
Appellant
v.
AFFIRMED.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
PER CURIAM
In 2006, appellant Shahid Omar was found guilty by a jury of possession of cocaine with
intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 720
months’ imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Omar v. State, CACR 06-1321
(Ark. App. Sept. 12, 2007).
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. After a hearing, the
trial court denied the petition, and appellant has lodged a pro se appeal here from the order.
We do not reverse a denial of postconviction relief unless the trial court’s findings are clearly
erroneous. Greene v. State, 356 Ark. 59, 146 S.W.3d 871 (2004). A finding is clearly erroneous
when, although there was evidence to support it, the appellate court after reviewing the entire
evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Flores v.
State, 350 Ark. 198, 85 S.W.3d 896 (2002).
On appeal, appellant submits two grounds for reversal.1 In each point, he maintains that the
trial court erred in finding that trial counsel was not ineffective in a particular instance. Under the
standard for showing ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must prove that counsel’s
performance was deficient and, as a result, appellant was deprived of a fair trial. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Jackson v. State, 352 Ark. 359, 105 S.W.3d 352 (2003). There
is a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional
assistance. Noel v. State, 342 Ark. 35, 26 S.W.3d 123 (2000).
Appellant first contends that trial counsel failed to object when appellant was sentenced.
Appellant posits that counsel was ineffective because appellant’s term of imprisonment exceeded
the maximum for the charge of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver.
The range of sentences that could be imposed was based upon the amount of cocaine that was
found in appellant’s possession. Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-64-401(a)(1)(D) (Repl.
2005), a defendant who has more than 400 grams of a controlled substance in his possession “shall
be imprisoned for not less than forty (40) years, or life[.]” At trial, a report from the Arkansas State
Crime Laboratory was introduced into evidence. Therein, the forensic chemist determined that more
than two kilograms of cocaine had been seized from appellant’s car.
Appellant argues here that his sentence of 720 months’, or 60 years’, imprisonment was not
authorized. He focuses on the “or life” language of the statute and maintains that the jury had only
two choices in imposing a sentence, i.e., only forty years’ imprisonment or only life imprisonment.
He thus reasons that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to his 60 year sentence for this
1
Appellant raised several additional issues in the original petition filed in the trial court but did
not raise them on appeal. Claims raised below but not argued on appeal are considered abandoned. State
v. Grisby, 370 Ark. 66, 257 S.W.3d 104 (2007).
-2-
charge.
Appellant’s interpretation of the sentencing portion of the statute is incorrect. A sentence
of “not less than forty (40) years” needs only to exceed a thirty-nine-year sentence. The upper end
of a valid sentence based on this language is open for all intents and purposes. We have affirmed
a sentence of forty-one years, Strong v. State, 368 Ark. 23, 242 S.W.3d 620 (2006), one hundred
years, Luckey v. State, 302 Ark. 116, 787 S.W.2d 244 (1990) and more than three hundred years,
Malone v. State, 294 Ark. 127, 741 S.W.2d 246 (1987). Under this language, we found “no
provision under Arkansas law or the United States Constitution which prohibits a sentence of a term
of years which exceeds the usual life span of human beings.” Malone v. State, 294 Ark. at 130, 741
S.W.2d at 248.
Appellant does not present a legitimate basis to find that his sentence of sixty years was
incorrect under the applicable language or prohibited from being imposed. Without such a showing,
trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to make an argument that is meritless, either at trial or
on appeal. Greene v. State, supra. Because appellant fails to establish that counsel was ineffective
under Strickland, the trial court did not err in finding that counsel was not ineffective.
Next, appellant contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the trial
court, in denying appellant’s motion to suppress, relied upon allegedly improper evidence. Prior to
trial, counsel filed a motion to suppress the cocaine found in appellant’s car. As the basis for
suppression, counsel argued that the police stop exceeded the amount of time the police officer was
allowed to detain appellant without making an arrest, as set out in Arkansas Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.1. The trial court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed the court’s ruling
in the direct appeal.
-3-
Appellant is not entitled to relief under Rule 37.1 based on this argument. In claiming that
counsel was ineffective, appellant here minutely parses the time line of the police officer’s search
to demonstrate that the trial court improperly relied upon information developed by the officer past
the outside time limit of 7:00 p.m. However, appellant’s bootstrap argument merely attempts to
reargue a settled evidentiary issue through the guise of ineffective assistance of counsel. Arguments
regarding evidentiary issues are not the proper basis for a Rule 37.1 petition. Weatherford v. State,
363 Ark. 579, 215 S.W.3d 642 (2005). Moreover, Rule 37.1 does not provide a postconviction
remedy when an issue could have been, or was, raised at trial and argued on appeal. Camargo v.
State, 346 Ark. 118, 55 S.W.3d 255 (2001) (citing Davis v. State, 345 Ark. 161, 44 S.W.3d 726
(2001)).
Affirmed.
-4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.