refusing to recall this 11ficourt’s mandate when the defendant had received the constitutionally mandated evaluation at the state hospital and there was no evidence that the state-hospital evaluation was inadequate and no evidence presented that an independent evaluation would have rendered a different result
How later courts described this case
- refusing to recall this 11ficourt’s mandate when the defendant had received the constitutionally mandated evaluation at the state hospital and there was no evidence that the state-hospital evaluation was inadequate and no evidence presented that an independent evaluation would have rendered a different result
- "This court will recall a mandate and reopen a case only in extraordinary circumstances." ... "As we have held, recalling the mandate is an extremely narrow remedy reserved for unique situations; to enlarge it to allow typical claims of ineffective assistance of counsel would alter the nature of the relief entirely."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Paul E. Danielson, Justice, dissenting.
Because I am of the opinion that our decision in Wooten v. State, 2010 Ark. 467 , 370 S.W.3d 475 is, and should remain, controlling precedent in this case, I respectfully dissent. This court strongly adheres to the doctrine of stare decisis. See Hervey v. State, 2011 Ark. 113 , 2011 WL 913203 . Indeed, it is well settled that “precedent governs until it gives a result so patently wrong, so manifestly unjust, that a break becomes unavoidable.” Low v. Ins. Co. of N. America, 364 Ark. 427, 431 , 220 S.W.3d 670, 673 (2005). |„Our test is whether adherence to the rule would result in “great injury or injustice.” Id., 220 S.W.3d at 673 . This is not such a case.
Applying the test here, it is not our adherence to the rule in Wooten that would result in great injury or injustice. To the contrary, it is the majority’s overruling of that decision that has such a result — markedly so because this case involves a sentence of death. See Anderson v. State, 367 Ark. 536 , 242 S.W.3d 229 (2006) (Imber, J., dissenting) (observing that a change in the law is particularly regrettable when it affects a person who is appealing his death sentence). I would follow what I believe to be our correct and well-reasoned decision in Wooten and would grant the instant motion. Accordingly, I dissent.