Defendant’s motion to suppress was denied and he went to trial on a possession/constructive possession case and lost at trial. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Lane v. State, 2017 Ark. 34, 513 S.W.3d 230 (2017). On post-conviction, defendant could not show that his counsel’s advice about the motion to suppress was the cause of his not taking the plea offer. He had a month between the denial of the motion to suppress and the trial to decide, and he “rolled the dice.” (Arkansas is a jury sentencing state.) Lane v. State, 2019 Ark. 5, 2019 Ark. LEXIS 4 (Jan. 17, 2019):
Lane knew well before trial that, despite counsel’s arguments on the law, the trial court had ruled adversely on his motion to suppress. At the Rule 37 hearing, Lane questioned his attorney about whether he believed that, had he given different advice about whether the evidence ultimately should be suppressed, Lane would have accepted a plea deal on the charges. Counsel’s testimony was that Lane’s state of mind was such that he was not sure that Lane would have accepted a plea deal, particularly the only one that had been offered, even knowing with certainty that the evidence had not been suppressed and its admission was likely to be affirmed on appeal. Counsel agreed when the trial court noted that Lane had over a month after the suppression hearing to consider his options in that regard and asked if Lane had “rolled the dice.” The trial court did not clearly err in finding Lane failed to provide sufficient factual substantiation for his claim because he did not demonstrate that the result of the proceeding would have been different if counsel had provided the advice Lane contends should have been given to him.