Robert Oliver v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

June 19, 2003

ROBERT OLIVER

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 02-823

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR 97-624, HONORABLE JOHN B. PLEGGE, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

In 1997, appellant was found guilty by a jury of robbery, kidnapping, residential burglary, and theft of property. An aggregate sentence of 100 years' imprisonment was imposed. The court of appeals affirmed. Oliver v. State, CACR 98-368 (Ark. App. Dec. 16, 1998).

In 2002, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus on a claim of actual innocence pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001, codified as Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201 to -207 (Supp. 2001). The trial court denied the petition, concluding that appellant had failed to allege facts that satisfy the requirements of Act 1780. We agree.

Although appellant submitted his petition pursuant to Act 1780, he alleged in his petition that evidence was withheld by the prosecution in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). In his brief on appeal, appellant again emphasizes that his claim of actual innocence should be governed by Brady.

As the state points out, Brady claims are not within the ambit of Act 1780. Act 1780 waspassed by the General Assembly in response to nation-wide concerns that innocent persons were being imprisoned and even executed for crimes that they did not commit. Echols v. State, 350 Ark. 42, 44, 84 S.W.3d 424, 426 (2002) (per curiam). The act provides that a writ of habeas corpus could issue based upon new scientific evidence proving a person is actually innocent of the offense or offenses for which they were convicted. See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-103(a)(1), and 16-12-201 to -207. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied appellant's petition.

Affirmed.

Corbin, J., not participating.