Barber v. State (Per Curiam)Annotate this Case
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery, kidnapping, possession of a firearm, and related crimes. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions, ruling that they were supported by substantial evidence and that there was no speedy trial violation. Defendant later filed an Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 petition, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, that the judgment of conviction was illegal on its face, and that his right to a speedy trial had been violated. The circuit court denied Defendant’s claims for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s speedy trial claim was not cognizable under Rule 37.1; (2) Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims were unavailing; (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it denied relief without first holding an evidentiary hearing; and (4) Defendant’s claim that the judgment of conviction was illegal on its face was not preserved for appeal.