Terrie Weaver and Corrina Puckett v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

April 8, 2004

TERRI WEAVER and CORRINA JOANN PUCKETT

Appellants

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 02-737

PRO SE JOINT MOTION TO FILE A BELATED PETITION FOR REHEARING, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [CIRCUIT COURT OF HOT SPRING COUNTY, CR 2001-113-2 and CR 2001-204-2]

MOTION DENIED

Per Curiam

In 2001, Terri Weaver and Corrina Joann Puckett pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery. Weaver was sentenced to 480 months' imprisonment and Puckett was sentenced to 300 months' imprisonment. Weaver and Puckett subsequently filed separate, but essentially identical, timely petitions pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37 seeking to vacate the judgments. The petitions were denied, and Weaver and Puckett filed separate appeals from the orders, which were consolidated. We affirmed. Weaver and Puckett v. State, CR 02-737 (Ark. September 25, 2003)(per curiam). The mandate of this court was issued on October 15, 2003.

On February 24, 2004, more than four months after the mandate was issued, appellants filed the instant joint motion seeking leave to proceed with a belated petition for rehearing, or in the alternative, for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

Rule 2-3 (g) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court provides that rehearing lies only for the purpose of calling attention to specific errors or law or fact which the opinion is thought to contain. We need not reiterate the holding set out in the original opinion. It will suffice to say that appellants' petition, which is largely concerned with this court's interpretation of a particular precedent, does not demonstrate that there was any error of law or fact in the opinion. Moreover, appellants have offered no showing of good cause for their failure to fail a timely petition for rehearing before the mandate was issued.

As to appellants' request that a writ of habeas corpus be issued, their allegations should first be addressed to the circuit court in the county in which they are incarcerated. That court will be in a position to hold an evidentiary hearing, if it deems necessary, to assess the claims made by appellants.

Motion denied.