Clemons v. State
2014 Ark. 454
| Ark. | 2014Background
- 1992: Billy Ponder was murdered; physical evidence later produced a CODIS DNA match to James E. Clemons. Clemons was convicted of capital murder in 2009 and sentenced to life without parole; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
- April 9, 2012: Clemons filed a pro se postconviction petition under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201 et seq., seeking scientific testing of preserved evidence to support actual-innocence claims.
- Circuit court initially dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; this court reversed and remanded. On remand the circuit court denied the petition (Apr. 11, 2013) and later denied a motion for reconsideration (Sept. 5, 2013), referencing and adopting the State’s February 25, 2013 response.
- Clemons filed notices of appeal; the record tendered to the Supreme Court was untimely under Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 4(b). He sought belated appeal relief, alleging that a clerk’s assurances caused the delay.
- The Supreme Court treated the filings as a motion for rule on clerk, reviewed the merits, and denied relief because Clemons failed to satisfy statutory predicate requirements for postconviction testing and thus could not prevail on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Clemons' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clemons is entitled to a belated appeal/record lodging | Clemons asserted clerk assurances caused late lodging and sought belated appeal | Court rules notices of appeal were timely but record not lodged within 90 days; burden on appellant to show good cause | Denied: court reviewed merits and found no basis to excuse procedural default because appeal would fail |
| Whether the circuit court erred by failing to make findings or hold an evidentiary hearing when denying testing | Clemons argued the order lacked required findings and that a hearing was needed | State argued its response, incorporated by the order, adequately addressed statutory issues and showed files/records conclusively established no relief | Denied: referencing State’s response provided adequate basis; summary denial not erroneous when petition failed statutory showings |
| Whether Clemons identified preserved evidence meeting §16-112-202 predicate requirements | Clemons identified latent prints, blood on towel and cash drawer, epidermal skin from victim’s jeans | State showed prior testing, limited or excluding results, and lack of properly preserved items in part; Clemons failed to tie retained samples to a new-innocence theory | Denied: petition did not identify evidence that satisfied chain-of-custody/preservation and link to a defense establishing actual innocence |
| Whether Clemons rebutted the timeliness presumption by identifying new, substantially more probative testing | Clemons asserted newer methods exist that would be more probative than 1992 tests | State noted evidence had been tested in 2007–2009 using modern methods and Clemons failed to specify new tests or show they are substantially more probative | Denied: Clemons did not identify new testing or show it would overcome the presumption against timeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Clemons v. State, 2010 Ark. 337, 369 S.W.3d 710 (direct-appeal opinion affirming conviction)
- Hutcherson v. State, 2014 Ark. 326, 438 S.W.3d 909 (discussing predicate requirements for postconviction testing and standards for ordering testing)