Arkansas Supreme Court affirms denial of Rule 37 petition in McNeil‑Lewis murder case

The Arkansas Supreme Court on Sept. 19, 2024, affirmed the Crittenden County Circuit Court’s denial of postconviction relief under Rule 37 for Sir Jeffery McNeil‑Lewis, who was convicted of first‑degree murder, first‑degree battery, eight counts of terroristic threatening and firearm enhancements and sentenced to life in prison plus 15 years. The opinion was delivered by Associate Justice Rhonda K. Wood.

The ruling matters because the court reviewed eight separate ineffective‑assistance‑of‑counsel claims and upheld the trial court’s factual findings and legal conclusions under the Strickland v. Washington standard. The Supreme Court concluded the circuit court did not clearly err in crediting trial counsel’s testimony or in finding no reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the alleged errors.

The convictions stemmed from a shooting at an abandoned house in West Memphis. The court summarized the evidence tying McNeil‑Lewis to the crime: the victim Jarvis Moore died of a head wound; victim and witness Stacy Abram identified McNeil‑Lewis as a shooter; McNeil‑Lewis was apprehended at the scene and had gunshot residue on his hands; guns were recovered from the sister’s house and experts linked firearms to the shootings; and an unavailable eyewitness identified McNeil‑Lewis via dashcam footage. The court also noted the admission on appeal of dashcam footage and separate 911 calls had been litigated previously on direct appeal (McNeil‑Lewis v. State, 2023 Ark. 54).

The Supreme Court reviewed each of the eight claims the circuit court addressed and affirmed the lower court’s rulings as follows: defense counsel’s decision to pursue a Confrontation Clause argument rather than a separate hearsay objection to 911 calls was a reasonable strategic choice; counsel’s decision not to pursue a justification/self‑defense theory reflected a pretrial agreement and reasonable strategy; an objection to allegedly inflammatory statements in the State’s sentencing closing would not have shown a reasonable probability of a different sentence; failure to move to suppress evidence seized from the sister’s house was not prejudicial given other identifications and gunshot residue; the juror‑misconduct claim failed because McNeil‑Lewis did not prove actual bias (the juror had answered a present‑tense questionnaire and her father, a former sheriff, was deceased more than ten years earlier); a delayed Batson challenge would not have succeeded because the State proffered a race‑neutral reason tied to the juror’s social media and the trial court would have denied the challenge; counsel’s decision not to call witnesses at sentencing was reasonable given the defendant’s instruction not to involve others and the risk of eliciting damaging criminal‑history evidence; and the circuit court credited counsel’s testimony that she relayed a plea offer and that McNeil‑Lewis rejected it.

On the question of prejudice, the circuit court found that McNeil‑Lewis had “failed to prove that but for any deficiencies committed by trial counsel the outcome of the case would have been different.” The Supreme Court repeated that a petitioner must show both deficient performance and resulting prejudice under Strickland. It declined to disturb the circuit court’s credibility determinations, noting that credibility calls based on witness demeanor are for the trial court.

The court also applied Arkansas and federal precedent about counsel performance and appellate briefing. It summarily affirmed several points where the appellant’s briefing did not adequately address the circuit court’s specific factual findings. The opinion cited multiple Arkansas cases on ineffective assistance, Batson standards and appellate practice.

The Supreme Court concluded: "We affirm." Counsel of record listed in the opinion are Michael Kiel Kaiser for the appellant and Tim Griffin, Attorney General, by David L. Eanes Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

The decision leaves in place the convictions and sentence imposed by the Crittenden County Circuit Court (No. 18CR‑21‑104).