Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Van Winkle v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 10, 2016No. CR-15-324Published

1ConcurrenceJosephine Linker Hart, Justice

In .his petition for postconviction relief, David Van Wmkle contended in part that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to present, based on objective facts, an alternative theory about what occurred. In reeitmg those facts, he noted that he was found near the crime scene with his eyes swollen shut and 11flhis own blood on his hands and, clothes and also matted in his ham. He stated that his glasses and hearing aids were later, found at his< residence, thus, rendering him blind and deaf at the .scene. . Further, he stated that he had no memory of how he arrived at the scene. . He…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Bowerman v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API