Slocum v. State
2013 Ark. 406
Ark.2013Background
- Appellant Kenneth Slocum was convicted of capital murder in 1995 and sentenced to life without parole; conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Slocum later pursued postconviction relief (Rule 37.1) and a new trial was granted, then reversed by this court.
- In 2011 Slocum filed a pro se Act 1780 habeas petition seeking DNA/fingerprint testing of a rubber mask found at the crime scene; he argued the petition was timely.
- Trial court denied relief; Slocum pursued an appeal and sought an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief.
- The court held that extensions/preliminary relief were moot because the appeal could not prevail under the Act 1780 framework and related timeliness predicates.
- The court ultimately dismissed the appeal for lack of viable relief and dismissed the extension as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to extend time to file the brief | Slocum sought an extension for briefing | No extension needed if appeal futile under Act 1780 | Extension moot; appeal dismissed |
| Timeliness of Act 1780 petition | Petition timely due to new testing | Presumption against timeliness not rebutted | Petition untimely; dismissal affirmed |
| Predicate for testing under Act 1780 | Mask testing could yield new material evidence | No new material evidence; testing not substantially more probative | No entitlement to DNA/fingerprint testing; relief denied |
| Whether AFIS/STR/mDNA testing constitutes new method | AFIS/STR/mDNA could be new methods | AFIS/DNA methods were not shown to be new or more probative | Testing methods not shown to be new or substantially more probative; petition fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper v. State, 2013 Ark. 180 (Ark. 2013) (per curiam: proceedings improper where relief unlikely)
- Fields v. State, 2013 Ark. 154 (Ark. 2013) (per curiam; similar timeliness/relief principles)
- King v. State, 2013 Ark. 133 (Ark. 2013) (King III; addressing Act 1780 petitions and testing predicates)
- Foster v. State, 2013 Ark. 61 (Ark. 2013) (per curiam; testing predicates under Act 1780)
- Garner v. State, 2012 Ark. 271 (Ark. 2012) (per curiam; testing timing and new technology considerations)