Williams v. StateWilliams v. State
In 2012, appellant Corey J. Williams was found guilty of aggravated robbery and misdemeanоr theft of property, with a firearm enhancement. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 540 months’ imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Williams v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 179. Appellant subsequently filed in the trial court a timely, verified pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to
Now before us are appellant‘s motions for extension of time to file his brief and for transcript. We need not consider the merits of the motions because it is clear from the record that appellant could not prevail if an appeal were permittеd to go forward. An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief will not be allowed to proceed where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Holliday v. State, 2013 Ark. 47 (per curiam); Bates v. State, 2012 Ark. 394 (per curiam); Martin v. State, 2012 Ark. 312 (per curiam). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and thе motions are moot.
When no hearing is held on a Rule 37.1 petition, the trial court has an obligation to provide written findings that conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief. Riley v. State, 2011 Ark. 394 (per curiam); Sandoval-Vega v. State, 2011 Ark. 393, 384 S.W.3d 508 (per curiam); Camacho v. State, 2011 Ark. 235 (per curiam); Davenport v. State, 2011 Ark. 105 (per curiam); see also
In his petition, appellant first claimed that he was entitled to postconviction relief based on the argument that the prosecuting attorneys were vindictive when they amended the felony information to include a fireаrm enhancement after the first trial ended in a mistrial due to a hung jury. The court of appeals addressed this issue on direct appeаl, holding that the trial court
Appellant also claimed that his recorded statement, which was introduced into evidence at trial, was the result of coercion by law enforcеment. There was no objection to the recorded statement at trial. This claim amounted to trial error. As a general rule, allegаtions of trial error, even those of constitutional dimension, must be raised at trial and subsequently on the record on direct appeal. Moten, 2013 Ark. 503.; Green v. State, 2013 Ark. 455 (per curiam). There is an exception, however, when the petitioner alleges errors that are so fundamental as to render the judgment of conviction void or subject to collateral attack. Springs v. State, 2012 Ark. 87, 387 S.W.3d 143. Appellant‘s allegation of trial error did not rise to a showing of fundamental error sufficient to void the judgment in his case.
Appellant also argued that he was entitled to relief based on the denial of a fair and impartial trial because counsel failed to inform the trial court of the existence of a letter from the victim stаting that she did not want appellant to be prosecuted. According to the trial record, the existence of the letter and its admissibility wаs addressed by the trial court prior to trial. The State argued that it anticipated that counsel would attempt to introduce a statement from the victim stating, “I do not wish to prosecute,” and it objected to the introduction of the statement. After considering arguments from the State and defense counsel, the trial court
Appellant also made the conclusory statement that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial because his attorney “made no objections during trial.” He provides no factual substantiation for his claim, and the argument is not supported by the record. Neither conclusory statements nor allegations without factual substantiаtion are sufficient to overcome the presumption that counsel was effective, nor do they warrant granting postconviction relief. Wedgeworth v. State, 2013 Ark. 119 (per curiam); Crain v. State, 2012 Ark. 412 (per curiam). We have repeatedly held that conclusory claims are insufficient to sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Wedgeworth, 2013 Ark. 119; Crain, 2012 Ark. 412; Reed v. State, 2011 Ark. 115 (per curiam). Appellant‘s unsubstantiated and conclusory allegation clearly fell short of establishing that hе was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial.
Finally, appellant claimed in his petition that he was entitled to a copy of the trial transcript at public expense to prove his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial сourt correctly found that appellant was not entitled to a copy of the transcript. It is well settled that indigency alone does not entitle a petitioner to free photocopying. Daniels v. State, 2012 Ark. 124 (per curiam); see also Martinez-Marmol v. State, 2013 Ark. 436 (per curiam); Mendiola v. State, 2013 Ark. 92 (per curiam). To be entitled to a copy of a trial transcript at public expense, a petitioner must show a compelling need for the transcript to support an allegation contained in a timely petition for postconviction relief. Koontz v. State, 2013 Ark. 181 (per curiam); Mendiola, 2013 Ark. 92. Appellant failed to provide any compelling need for the transcript. Accordingly, he failed to show that the transcript that he sought should have been provided to him at no cost. See Daniels, 2012 Ark. 124.
Appeal dismissed; motions moot.