Winnett v. State
2013 Ark. 482
Ark.2013Background
- In 2007 Donald Felix Winnett pled guilty or nolo contendere to rape and received a 240‑month sentence.
- In 2013 Winnett filed a pro se habeas petition under Act 1780 of 2001 (as amended), claiming that scientific evidence existed to prove his actual innocence and asserting defects in his arrest (no warrant, invalid affidavit of probable cause, not read Miranda).
- The trial court denied the petition as untimely and for lack of any proffered scientific evidence showing actual innocence or meeting the statutory prerequisites for testing.
- Winnett appealed and filed pro se motions to submit a nonconforming brief and for sentence reduction.
- The Supreme Court of Arkansas concluded the habeas petition was without merit and dismissed the appeal; the ancillary motions were rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petition satisfies Act 1780 predicate requirements for testing/new scientific evidence | Winnett asserted scientific evidence exists proving actual innocence (cited Act 1780); alleged arrest and Miranda defects | State argued Winnett offered no scientific evidence or description of testing/technology and failed to meet statutory prerequisites | Denied — Winnett presented no new scientific evidence or description of technology; petition fails Act 1780 requirements |
| Whether petition was timely under Ark. Code § 16-112-202 | Winnett filed >5 years after conviction and gave no basis to rebut presumption of untimeliness | State argued petition was untimely and Winnett did not invoke any statutory exception or show good cause | Denied — petition untimely; Winnett failed to rebut presumption against timeliness |
| Consideration of pro se motions (nonconforming brief; sentence reduction) | Winnett sought leave to file nonconforming brief and reduction of sentence | State did not contest mootness once petition lacked merit | Dismissed/Moot — Court declined to consider motions because underlying appeal could not succeed |
Key Cases Cited
- Douthitt v. State, 366 Ark. 579, 237 S.W.3d 76 (2006) (discussing statutory prerequisites for postconviction testing under Act 1780)
Disposition: Appeal dismissed; motions moot.