Penn v. State
2013 Ark. 409
Ark.2013Background
- Allen Lynn Penn was convicted of capital murder in 1983 and sentenced to life without parole; prior postconviction and coram nobis claims were litigated and denied.
- In 2004 Penn sought DNA testing under Act 1780 (Ark. Code Ann. §16-112-201 et seq.); the trial court denied relief and this Court affirmed that no sample existed to be tested.
- In April 2012 Penn filed a pro se habeas petition under the statute (as amended by Act 2250 of 2005) seeking AFIS fingerprint comparison of prints lifted from the crime scene to three alternative suspects, and requested an evidentiary hearing.
- The trial court denied the petition as untimely and on the merits, finding AFIS was not shown to be a new, substantially more probative method and would not produce evidence raising a reasonable probability of innocence; Penn moved for reconsideration and alternatively sought appeal.
- Penn filed a late notice of appeal; the clerk declined to lodge the record because the notice was untimely. Penn then moved this Court for a rule on the clerk or for a belated appeal and to order lodging of the record.
- This Court denied relief, concluding Penn’s petition and reconsideration motion were without merit because he failed to meet statutory prerequisites for testing, failed to rebut the presumption against timeliness, and was not entitled to a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Penn's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AFIS is a “new method or technology” substantially more probative than prior fingerprint testing (§16-112-202(3)) | AFIS is new technology that can enhance partial/smudged prints and compare them to a larger database | AFIS only compares existing prints to a wider database and is not shown to be a new method substantially more probative | Denied — Penn failed to show AFIS is a new, substantially more probative method |
| Whether AFIS testing would produce new material evidence supporting defense theory and raise reasonable probability of innocence (§16-112-202(8)) | AFIS comparison to three alternative suspects could identify new perpetrator and support innocence | Jury already heard that lifted prints did not match Penn; broader database comparison would not create materially new evidence | Denied — AFIS would not produce new material evidence or raise a reasonable probability of innocence |
| Timeliness: whether Penn rebutted the presumption against untimely filing (>36 months) (§16-112-202(10)) | AFIS is a new testing method, so the timeliness presumption is rebutted | Penn filed ~29 years after conviction and failed to show AFIS meets the statutory timeliness exceptions | Denied — Penn did not rebut the presumption against timeliness |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required | Penn requested a hearing to present evidence about AFIS capabilities and other factual issues | The petition, records, and trial testimony conclusively showed no relief was warranted under the statutory requirements | Denied — no hearing required because statutory prerequisites were not satisfied and records conclusively show no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Penn v. State, 282 Ark. 571 (Ark. 1984) (remanding for coram nobis consideration based on confession allegation)
- Penn v. State, 284 Ark. 234 (Ark. 1984) (affirming conviction after coram nobis hearing)
- Douthitt v. State, 366 Ark. 579 (2006) (per curiam) (describing statutory prerequisites for postconviction scientific testing)
- Strong v. State, 2010 Ark. 181 (Ark. 2010) (discussing Act 1780 actual-innocence testing under the statute)