Almer Willis Wright v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

April 8, 2004

ALMER WILLIS WRIGHT

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 03-121

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HOT SPRING COUNTY, CR 2000-53-2, HONORABLE PHILLIP H. SHIRRON, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Per Curiam

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of first-degree sexual abuse and two counts of rape. An aggregate sentence of thirty years' imprisonment was imposed. The court of appeals affirmed on direct appeal. Wright v. State, CACR 01-472 (Ark. App. Dec. 19, 2001). This court subsequently denied appellant's request for a belated appeal from the denial of a Rule 37 petition and his petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Wright v. State, CR 02-764 (Ark. Dec. 19, 2002) (per curiam); Wright v. State, CACR 01-472 (Ark. April 24, 2003) (per curiam). He now appeals pro se from the dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus on a claim of actual innocence pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201 to -207 (Supp. 2001). We affirm.

Although appellant submitted his petition pursuant to Act 1780, he raised claims that are not within the ambit of the act. Act 1780 was passed 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 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.

In contrast, appellant alleged in his petition that the trial court erred in making various rulings during his trial. A writ of habeas corpus will not be issued to correct errors or irregularities that occurred at trial. Meny v. Norris, 340 Ark. 418, 420, 13 S.W.3d 143, 144 (2000). Further, none of appellant's claims alleged that new scientific evidence established his actual innocence, or that the scientific predicate for a claim could not have been previously discovered through due diligence and that the facts underlying the claim would establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact-finder would have found him guilty. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201(a) (Supp. 2003). Accordingly, the circuit court properly dismissed appellant's Act 1780 petition.

Appellant also contends on appeal that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for court appointed expert witnesses and investigators, and motion to compel discovery. The record fails to show, however, that the circuit court ruled upon the motions. It was appellant's burden to obtain a ruling on his motions in order to preserve the matters for this court's review. See e.g., Burley v. State, 348 Ark. 422, 428, 73 S.W.3d 600, 604 (2002).

Finally, appellant submits that the circuit court's order was conclusory. He argues that the circuit court was required to issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law making specific reference to parts of the record. Appellant apparently bases his argument on Rule 37.3(a) (2003), which requires a circuit court to make written findings and to specify any parts of the record relied upon if the court denies a Rule 37 petition without first holding a hearing. The statutes governing Act 1780 proceedings, however, contain no similar specificity requirement. To the contrary, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-205(a) (Supp. 2003) states that a circuit court shall promptly set a hearing on an Act 1780 petition and make findings of fact and conclusions of law unless the petition and the files and records conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief. As appellant's claims were not cognizable pursuant to Act 1780, the circuit court was not bound to make findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Affirmed.