First, we observed that presuming to know the mental state of a jury presents no rational basis in fact in support of a petitioner's argument. Id. (citing Jones v. State, 2009 Ark. 436 (per curiam)). Thus, we held that Watkins's allegation of prejudice was conclusory and without factual substantiation, which resulted in the failure to satisfy his burden of providing facts that affirmatively supported his claim of prejudice.
Rather than asserting a claim that his conviction was void because he did not obtain an evaluation of his competency to stand trial, petitioner's claim is one of trial error that impacted his choice of defense strategy. The burden is on the petitioner seeking postconviction relief to establish grounds to void the judgment of conviction. Jones v. State, 2009 Ark. 436 (per curiam). Petitioner has not established grounds for a Rule 37.1 proceeding that would void his conviction.
We have held that presuming to know the mental state of a jury presents no rational basis in fact in support of a petitioner's argument. SeeJones v. State, 2009 Ark. 436, 2009 WL 3063022 (per curiam). Appellant cited no cases in his petition or at his Rule 37.1 hearing in support of this proposition, nor did he present an otherwise convincing argument on this point.