Biggs v. State
2014 Ark. 114
Ark.2014Background
- Alvin Biggs was convicted in 2001 of first-degree murder and sentenced to 540 months’ imprisonment; the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- In 2012 Biggs filed a pro se petition under Act 1780 (as amended and codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-201 to -208) seeking postconviction scientific testing (fingerprint analysis of a 9mm Ruger and its magazine, and gunshot residue test results) claiming such testing would show actual innocence.
- The circuit court denied the petition as untimely under the statute’s 36-month limitation and noted the pistol and magazine had been processed pretrial with no usable prints developed.
- Biggs appealed and also moved for appointment of counsel; the Supreme Court found no entitlement to counsel but deemed the motion moot because Biggs filed his briefs pro se.
- The court reviewed whether the petition rebutted the statutory presumption against timeliness and whether denial without an evidentiary hearing was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition was timely under §16-112-202(10) | Biggs argued testing would show actual innocence and asserted delay was due to pursuing collateral relief | State argued petition filed ~11 years after conviction and beyond 36-month limit; presumption against timeliness not rebutted | Court held petition untimely; Biggs failed to rebut presumption against timeliness |
| Whether good cause existed to overcome the 36-month presumption | Biggs claimed most of his time since conviction was spent seeking collateral review (and later argued some evidence was never tested) | State: no showing that collateral proceedings prevented timely filing; arguments about untested evidence raised for first time on appeal | Court held Biggs did not establish good cause; new arguments not considered because not raised below |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required | Biggs argued the record did not conclusively show the petition was without merit and sought testing | State relied on petition/files showing lack of timeliness and prior fingerprint processing | Court held no hearing required because files conclusively showed entitlement to no relief under §16-112-205(a) |
| Whether counsel should be appointed for postconviction appeal | Biggs moved for appointment of counsel | State: no absolute right to counsel in civil postconviction matters; appointment only if substantial showing of entitlement and inability to proceed pro se | Court found no substantial showing warranting counsel but motion moot because Biggs filed briefs pro se |
Key Cases Cited
- Strong v. State, 372 S.W.3d 758 (Ark. 2010) (discussing Act 1780 and standards for relief based on new scientific evidence)
- Douthitt v. State, 237 S.W.3d 76 (Ark. 2006) (per curiam) (explaining predicate requirements for testing under Act 1780)
- Howard v. Lockhart, 777 S.W.2d 223 (Ark. 1989) (per curiam) (no absolute right to counsel in postconviction proceedings; appointment standards)
- Virgin v. Lockhart, 702 S.W.2d 9 (Ark. 1986) (per curiam) (same principle regarding counsel in postconviction cases)
- Thomas v. State, 257 S.W.3d 92 (Ark. 2007) (issues raised first on appeal that were not presented to the trial court will not be considered)