Ferrell v. State
2014 Ark. 242
| Ark. | 2014Background
- In 1995 David Ferrell was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life without parole; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
- In 2010 Ferrell filed a pro se petition under Act 1780 (Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-201 to -208) seeking DNA, blood-type, and ballistic testing of evidence from the original investigation.
- The trial court denied the petition, finding Ferrell identified no new scientific testing and failed to rebut the statutory presumption against untimeliness.
- Ferrell alleged a range of defects: untested blood stains (including possible exhumation), ballistic testing of weapons and bullets, handwriting analysis of a witness note, and assorted claims of false evidence and prosecutorial or investigative misconduct.
- The court rejected non-testing claims as outside Act 1780’s scope (Act 1780 is limited to claims seeking scientific testing) and held Ferrell did not meet the statutory grounds to overcome the 36-month timeliness presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ferrell) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under Ark. Code § 16-112-202(10) | Petition filed 15 years post-conviction; argues testing warranted despite delay | Petition is presumptively untimely (filed >36 months); Ferrell failed to rebut presumption | Court: Petition untimely; Ferrell did not rebut presumption; denial affirmed |
| Availability of new testing/technology | Requests DNA, blood-type, ballistic testing; implies current tests would prove innocence | State: DNA and other testing were available at trial; petitioner does not allege new methods or newly discovered evidence | Court: No allegation of new testing technology or newly discovered evidence; cannot order testing |
| Scope of Act 1780 (cognizability of claims) | Raises many claims (ineffective assistance, false evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, withheld evidence, trial errors) alongside testing requests | Act 1780 petitions are limited to testing-related claims; other claims are not cognizable under the statute | Court: Non-testing claims are not grounds for relief under Act 1780 and are dismissed |
| Entitlement to evidentiary hearing | Requests hearing to develop testing-related facts | Trial court may deny hearing if petition, files, records show no entitlement to relief (Ark. Code § 16-112-205(a)) | Court: No hearing required because records conclusively show petitioner not entitled to relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferrell v. State, 325 Ark. 455 (1996) (affirming Ferrell’s underlying conviction)
- Douthitt v. State, 366 Ark. 579 (2006) (per curiam) (sets predicate requirements for testing petitions under Act 1780)
- Strong v. State, 372 S.W.3d 758 (Ark. 2010) (per curiam) (discusses standards for actual-innocence testing petitions)
- Grisby v. State, 257 S.W.3d 104 (Ark. 2007) (limits scope of appeals and preserves abandonment rules)
- Abernathy v. State, 386 S.W.3d 477 (2012) (per curiam) (procedural rule on abandonment of appellate issues)