*1 v. STATE of Arkansas Felix TAYLOR CR 88-73 Court of Arkansas delivered
Opinion February Petitioner, se. pro Clark,
Steve Holder, Gen., by: Theodore Att’y Asst. Att’y *2 Gen., for respondent. in found guilty Felix was The petitioner Taylor
Per Curiam. and sentenced degreе second forgery to the of in the a trial court Court of The with four imprisonment years suspended. five years (February Taylor CA CR 87-156 affirmed. Appeals filed a 1988). petition Petitioner has seeking 37 post-conviction to Criminal Procedure Rule pursuant relief. District Court 1988 the United Statеs
In September Division, Arkansas, entered an order Western Eastern District of the against the of the vacating judgment petitioner et court seq. the circuit that to U.S.C. ground pursuant § because a the jurisdiction judgment petition did not have enter federal court at for removal was in the pending sixty the state The district court allowed judgment was entered. which was done to enter in the days judgment a new that there 20,1988. The federal court did not question September that he not contend finding guilt. a valid Petitioner does was the judgment court order or from from the fеderal appealed he in that entered in court He claims September. simply the trial him charges dismissed original is entitled have the court was without ground under Rule 37 on the circuit because jurisdiction original judgment petition to enter relief removal is no basis for Rule 37 Thеre pending. the matter is that under these circumstances. The fact of argument concerned more with the technical cleаrly grounds for has his other substantiating fashioned than with relief in the such that this court can assess whether petition thorough warrant relief. After a post-conviction of the we not conclusion accept review petition, petitioner’s either he is attack collaterally entitled in or to have entered judgment Further, action. case dismissed on basis of the federal court’s amended ground we find other lengthy petition be it can which has facts to support petition was denied a fair trial. concluded that petitioner remaining allegations an given opportunity and amended are: he was not when sentence he was not given the trial imposed; racially him a fair the sentence constituted cruel denied amendment; (5) of the eighth unusual in violation punishment because peti- sentence imposed color; white, had would tioner’s race and if he been the charges not not afforded the brought; (7) have been he was allocution; (8) the trial of the trial judge changed scope hearing unnamed witnesses for state prosecution called; agreed wоuld not be attitude judge’s petitioner changed extra-judicial toward after the court made contact in a civil attorneys case recuse; asked the did allow *3 petitioner to (11) before brought 19,1988, on judge trial so July judge could him; and dislike for asked that Will (12) Oliver, bondsman, 18, 1988, a bаil be contacted on July to determine why petitioner had not been picked-up; (13) and elected in violation of unconstitutionаlly illegally Voting and Rights Act the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments; (14) the prosecution failed to disclose that the complaining witness had сommitted a bank in 1981 and robbery 1985; 18, 1988, witness bribery on (15) July unlawfully arrested and Will and imprisoned by Oliver held illegally 2, and unconstitutionally August 1988, until when he Correction; transferred to the Arkansas (16) Department 31, Pulaski Jail denied him County access to counsel July on 1988; (17) arrest, Will Oliver had legal to make authority but if he did hаve authority, it was granted unconstitutionally by Arkansas; state of (18) the state of allows illegally Arkansas bail bondsmen to do “what it cannot and lеgally constitutionally officials;” law qualified enforcement (19) conviction was obtained by prosecuting who was illegally electеd; unconstitutionally (20) the Arkansas Court’s Supreme rule allowing to check out non-attorneys is transcripts unconstitutional; the trial court had a to duty notify General of Attorney the United States before further proceeding in his case. All of the allegations enumerated above are con- is, clusory, that they do not state facts from which this court could Moreover, conclude that the petitioner suffеred any prejudice. allegations which relate leading to events to conviction are not Rule timely raised under 37. The rule is not mеre error in the for the review of a method intended to provide issues at raising to serve as substitute for conduct the trial or dimension are or on Even constitutional questions trial appeal. they present unless the direct beyond appeal not preservеd is such fundamental nature' questions of 44, 630 S.W.2d cert. Ruiz v. rendered void. denied, raised None of 459 U.S. from which it'can be factual substantiation petitiоner has is which concluded that his conviction void. of the rule not within the purview events after are pertain to the conviction аnd related limited questions sentence, the execution of the sentence. he was denied the effective
Petitioner also аsserts that
on
He contends that counsel failed
assistance of counsel
appeal.
filed a notice of
subsequently
to:
file a motion for new trial and
for new
filing
a motion
appeal
prevented
on
(3) prepare
raise the
issue
jurisdictional
aрpeal;
brief;
allow him to assist with
brief
abstract and
adequate
record; (5)
file a petition
and denied him access
review;
stay
filе a motion
States Supreme
recall mandate
the United
pending appeal
Court;
the United States
(7) file notice
Court;
arrestеd Will
falsely
him when was
represent
1988;
July
Oliver and
before the trial
about a
provided by
information
pursue
prosecutor
*4
As with the
witness with evidenсe
the defense.
helpful
error,
has not met
enumerated
previously
the failure
his burden of
how he was
explaining
what
explain
counsel
act. For
does
example, petitioner
for new trial or
argued
would have
in a motion
review,
the actions of counsеl
why
fails to explain
been affirmed on
already
after
case had
assistance of counsel on
bearing
on his
to effectivе
to the defense
what the unnamed witness with evidence helpful
It is well
if contacted
counsel.
would have testified about
and which fail
sеttled that
which are unsubstantiated
are not sufficient warrant post-
to the defense
v.
Petition J., dissents. Purtle, Justice, Purtle,
John I. As I dissenting. understand the facts in this removal was filed federal court to the sentence prior being in the state court. pronounced Thereafter, the federal court vacatеd sentence and gave state court within which sixty days to enter a new judgment. Judgment entered on 1988. The petitioner, was then appeаrs, serving in the Arkansas Department Correction and was not before the Therefore, to be sentenced. the sentence in absentia is unconstitutional.