Floyd Williams v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

OCTOBER 18, 2000

FLOYD WILLIAMS

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 76-93

PRO SE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO RECALL MANDATE and MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND AMENDED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR 75-1293]

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND AMENDED MOTION DISMISSED

Floyd Williams was convicted by a jury in 1975 of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. We affirmed. Williams v. State, 260 Ark. 457, 541 S.W.2d 300 (1976). Williams subsequently filed three petitions for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37 in this court, all of which were denied. On February 25, 2000, Williams sought by pro se motion to have the mandate issued on direct appeal of the judgment recalled on the ground that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain the judgment and that this court erred in affirming the judgment. Because the sufficiency of the evidence is a matter to be addressed at trial and on the record on appeal, we dismissed the motion. Williams v. State, CR 76-93 (May 4, 2000).

Now before us are Williams's motions seeking reconsideration of the motion to recallmandate and appointment of counsel. These motions are also dismissed.1 As we said when the original motion was dismissed, there is no provision in the prevailing rules of procedure for a mandate to be recalled so that a petitioner may again take up matters which were, or could have been, settled at trial and on the record on appeal. Even claims of constitutional dimension are waived if not raised in accordance with procedural rules. See Cigainero v. State, 321 Ark. 533, 906 S.W.2d 282 (1995).

Motions dismissed.

1 Williams filed a motion to expedite consideration of his motions. As the motions are dismissed, the motion to expedite is moot.