Cooper v. State, 2014 Ark. 243

Vincent M. Cooper was tried for aggravated and attempted robbery; after a 2003 conviction the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a retrial. Cooper was reconvicted and sentenced to 360 months' imprisonment.
Cooper pursued multiple postconviction and collateral challenges over several years, including requests for scientific testing of evidence (items: red-and-blue plaid jacket, white sheet mask, candy-cane yard ornament) and claims based on a jailhouse affidavit by Keith Moore implicating another person.
In 2011 Cooper filed a pro se petition in the Miller County Circuit Court styled as a writ of certiorari but seeking postconviction relief and scientific testing under Act 1780 of 2001.
The circuit court denied relief, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ in the matter and that the claims were previously adjudicated on direct appeal and in Cooper’s prior postconviction proceedings.
The Arkansas Supreme Court treated the filing as a Rule 37 postconviction petition, reviewed whether prior decisions or procedural rules barred relitigation, and affirmed the circuit court’s denial of relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Juror bias (two jurors knew Cooper/case)	Juror familiarity violated due process	Claims already litigated; law of the case	Denied — claim barred by prior appellate adjudication
Evidence contamination / prosecutorial misconduct (jury handled evidence at first trial)	Jury handling contaminated evidence, violating fairness	Matter previously raised and rejected; not a basis for successive petition	Denied — barred by prior rulings and Rule 37.2(b) limits
Admissibility/sufficiency of identity evidence (Officer Stubbs’s testimony)	Stubbs’s testimony insufficient to establish identity	Identity/sufficiency addressed on direct appeal	Denied — merits were previously adjudicated (law of the case)
Newly discovered evidence / request for scientific testing (Moore affidavit; testing of jacket/mask/ornament)	Moore’s affidavit and testing requests show possible actual innocence and warrant testing	Requests previously raised or procedurally barred; successive Rule 37 petition not allowed	Denied — claims barred by prior decisions and Rule 37.2(b); unraised new allegations not preserved on appeal

Mhoon v. State, 369 Ark. 134, 251 S.W.3d 244 (2007) (courts look to substance over labels when construing pro se filings)
Sartin v. State, 400 S.W.3d 694 (Ark. 2012) (standard for clearly erroneous appellate review)
Hayes v. State, 383 S.W.3d 824 (Ark. 2011) (issues not raised on appeal are considered abandoned)
Abernathy v. State, 386 S.W.3d 477 (Ark. 2012) (failure to raise issues constitutes abandonment)