Lewis v. State
2015 Ark. 213
Ark.2015Background
- Albert Lewis, Jr. was convicted by a jury in 2008 of kidnapping and rape; sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive terms (360 months and life). His direct appeal was affirmed.
- Lewis filed a Rule 37.1 petition earlier; that postconviction appeal was dismissed in 2011.
- In 2014 Lewis filed a pro se habeas petition under Act 1780 (Ark. Code §§16-112-201 to -208) seeking scientific testing of a jacket, two pairs of underwear, couch pillows, and two knives, asserting testing would show his actual innocence and that his DNA was never found at the scene.
- The Crittenden County Circuit Court denied the Act 1780 petition, finding Lewis failed to present any new scientific evidence warranting testing.
- Lewis appealed, but his brief raised trial-error and ineffective-assistance claims not presented below; the court treated the petition solely as an Act 1780 scientific-testing request.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding Lewis abandoned arguments not raised below and that Act 1780 petitions are limited to scientific-testing claims (not trial-error or ineffective-assistance claims).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lewis was entitled to scientific testing under Act 1780 of identified evidence | Lewis: testing of jacket, underwear, pillows, and knives would produce new scientific evidence showing actual innocence (no DNA of Lewis at scene) | State/Court: Lewis failed to demonstrate the existence of new scientific evidence or entitlement to testing under Act 1780 | Denied — circuit court’s refusal to order testing affirmed; Lewis did not meet Act 1780 requirements |
| Whether appellate court should consider trial-error and ineffective-assistance claims raised for first time on appeal | Lewis urged trial-error and ineffective-assistance claims as grounds for relief on appeal | State/Court: issues not raised in the petition below are abandoned for Act 1780 proceedings and not cognizable under the Act | Abandoned/not considered — appellate court will not address new claims raised only on appeal; Act 1780 does not permit raising those issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. State, 2010 Ark. 209 (affirming convictions and sentences)
- Mhoon v. State, 369 Ark. 134, 251 S.W.3d 244 (2007) (courts look to substance over titles to determine relief sought)
- Pankau v. State, 2013 Ark. 162 (standard of review for postconviction relief is clearly erroneous)
- Waller v. Banks, 2013 Ark. 399 (arguments not raised on appeal are abandoned)
- Green v. State, 2013 Ark. 455 (appellate courts will not consider allegations raised first on appeal)
- Turner v. State, 2013 Ark. 421 (Act 1780 petitions are not a vehicle for trial-error or ineffective-assistance claims)
- Slocum v. State, 2013 Ark. 406 (Act 1780 petitions are limited to scientific-testing claims)
- Barton v. State, 2014 Ark. 418 (Act 1780 does not provide relief for issues outside its scope)