Cite as 2015 Ark. 263
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-90-198
Opinion Delivered June 4, 2015
LONNIE DOLPHUS STRAWHACKER
PETITIONER PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST
JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL
V. COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION
FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS
[WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT
STATE OF ARKANSAS COURT, NO. 72CR-89-760]
RESPONDENT
COUNSEL APPOINTED.
PER CURIAM
In 1990, Lonnie Dolphus Strawhacker was found guilty by a jury in the Washington
County Circuit Court of rape and first-degree battery and sentenced as a habitual offender to an
aggregate term of life imprisonment. We affirmed. Strawhacker v. State, 304 Ark. 726, 804
S.W.2d 720 (1991). Strawhacker subsequently filed in the trial court a petition for
postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.4 (1990), which was
denied after a hearing. We affirmed the order. Strawhacker v. State, CR-00-1417 (Ark. Jan. 24,
2002) (unpublished per curiam).
Now before us is Strawhacker’s pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court
to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. His petition arises following the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) notifying him that FBI Laboratory Examiner Michael Malone,
who testified against him at his trial, has been identified by the DOJ as an examiner whose work
failed to meet professional standards. In addition, the prosecutor in petitioner’s original trial
Cite as 2015 Ark. 263
informed the DOJ that Malone’s work was material to the petitioner’s conviction.
In his petition, Strawhacker additionally requested appointment of counsel. This is the
first petition to this court involving a defendant in Arkansas that the DOJ has identified as being
affected by the examiner’s failure to meet standards. This court has discretion to appoint
counsel in postconviction relief matters. Hammon v. State, 347 Ark. 26765 S.W.3d 853 (2001).
This court has stated that in regards to postconviction matters, there is no absolute right to
counsel. Howard v. Lockhart, 300 Ark. 144, 777 S.W.2d 223 (1989) (per curium). Nevertheless,
this court has held that if an appellant makes substantial showing that he is entitled to relief in
a postconviction matter and that he cannot proceed effectively without counsel, we will appoint
counsel. See id.
This court finds the petitioner makes the required showing that he may be entitled to
postconviction relief. Therefore, given the complexity and first impression issues involved, he
cannot properly proceed without appointed counsel. The court hereby appoints Jeff
Rosenzweig as counsel for the petitioner in this matter.
Counsel appointed.
2