Jeremy Clay Thompson v. State of Arkansas

── Jeremy Clay Thompson v. State of Arkansas ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 320 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CR-25-349 JEREMY CLAY THOMPSON Opinion Delivered May 20, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE SALINE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 63CR-22-637] STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE BRENT DILLON APPELLEE HOUSTON, JUDGE AFFIRMED BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge Jeremy Clay Thompson returns to this court with an appeal of the Saline County Circuit Court’s order denying his Rule 37 petition. We affirmed his conviction on direct appeal in Thompson v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 474, 699 S.W.3d 178. We set out the facts in more detail there. Briefly, Thompson’s jury trial was set to begin the morning of 10 May 2023. Thompson was present as the court drew names for twelve prospective jurors. Before voir dire began, Thompson’s appointed lawyer moved for a continuance at his request to retain private counsel. The circuit court said no. Thompson stayed through jury selection but left the courthouse during a brief recess before the picked jury was sworn. He could not be found or haled back. The trial “progress[ed] to a verdict” in his absence. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-89-103(a)(2)(A)(i) (Repl. 2005). The jury returned a guilty verdict and recommended sentence the same day, but the court did not impose sentence until May 18. We held that Thompson had not preserved his arguments for direct appeal.  Thompson filed a Rule 37 petition alleging his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in two respects. He renews both arguments on appeal. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing; we affirm. Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.3(a) states that [i]f the petition [for postconviction relief] and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief, the trial court shall make written findings to that effect, specifying any parts of the files, or records that are relied upon to sustain the court’s findings. If the court concludes from that paper record that a petitioner is entitled to no relief, no evidentiary hearing is needed. Mancia v. State, 2015 Ark. 115, 459 S.W.3d 259. But it must provide sufficient written findings to illustrate that the petitioner’s claims are meritless. Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.3(a). We review the decision to deny postconviction relief for clear error. Mancia, supra. Thompson argues counsel should have objected to holding the trial without him because the jury had not been sworn, so jeopardy had not yet attached. See Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978). He concludes that, as a result, the circuit court did not yet have discretion under section 103(a)(2)(A) to proceed with trial. He argues the circuit court then violated section 103(a)(2)(B) by rendering judgment in his absence. Under this statute, unless the death penalty is sought: (a)(1) If the indictment is for a felony, the defendant must be present during the trial. (2)(A)(i) If he or she escapes from custody after the trial has commenced or is present at the beginning of the trial and then causes himself or herself to be unable to appear at trial or if on bail shall absent himself or herself during the trial, the trial may either be stopped or progress to a verdict at the discretion of the court. 2  .... (B) However, judgment shall not be rendered until the presence of the defendant is obtained. Ark. Code Ann. § 16