Butler v. State
2014 Ark. 380
Ark.
2014
Check Treatment

LOUIS RICARDO BUTLER v. STATE OF ARKANSAS

No. CR-13-1016

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

September 18, 2014

2014 Ark. 380

HONORABLE HERBERT T. WRIGHT, JR., JUDGE

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 60CR-07-4949]

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM

In 2010, appellant Louis Ricardo Butler was found guilty of first-degree unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle and sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment. An additional 120 months’ imprisonment was imposed for commission of a felony with a firearm. We affirmed. . Subsequently, appellant‘s attorney filed in the trial court a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2010). The petition was denied on July 3, 2013. Appellant brings this appeal.

The order is affirmed on the ground that the petition was not verified in accordance with Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1(c). See ; see also (citing ). Rule 37.1(c) provides a form of affidavit to be attached to the petition. The verification requirement for a petition for postconviction relief is of substantive importance to prevent perjury. ; . For that purpose to be served, the petitioner must sign the petition and execute the requisite affidavit or verification. ; (citing ). In appellant‘s case, the Rule 37.1 petition was signed only by his attorney. We have held that counsel for a petitioner may not sign or verify a Rule 37.1 petition; the petitioner must sign the petition and verify it himself or herself in accordance with the rule. ; see also .

As appellant‘s petition for postconviction relief did not bear his signature accompanied by the required verification, appellant did not meet the requirements of Rule 37.1(c), and it should not have been accepted for filing.1 . Appellant urges this court to find that verification of the petition was not required in his case because he was alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, and the allegations were based entirely on legal argument, not “facts.” Appellant contends that, to require him to verify allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, would be tantamount to requiring him to practice law without a license inasmuch as he would be rendering an opinion based in law.

We do not agree that the petition was acceptable without verification. Appellant presents no authority for the claim, and we know of none, that there is a distinction to be made with regard to the verification requirement if a particular sort of allegation is raised in the Rule 37.1 petition. Rule 37.1(d) requires that the circuit clerk reject an unverified petition and that the trial court or appellate court must dismiss a petition that fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 37.1(c). ; . For that reason, the trial court did not err when it denied relief, and the order is affirmed.

Affirmed.

J. Brooks Wiggins, for appellant.

Dustin McDaniel, Att‘y Gen., by: Eileen W. Harrison, Ass‘t Att‘y Gen., for appellee.

Notes

1
On January 17, 2013, appellant filed a pro se “supplement to Rule 37.1 petition,” which bore his signature and was verified. The record does not reflect that he was given permission to supplement the original petition as required by Rule 37.2(e). See . Also, as the original petition, while timely filed, was not verified, jurisdiction of the trial court to consider a Rule 37.1 petition in the case was never established. See .
Read the detailed case summary