James Ken Anderson a/k/a James Kenneth Anderson v. State of Arkansas

Annotate this Case
cr03-512

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

May 6, 2004

JAMES KEN ANDERSON

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 03-512

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MILLER COUNTY, CR 98-568-2, HONORABLE JAMES SCOTT HUDSON, JR., JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Per Curiam 

Appellant pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in 1999. He was sentenced to forty years' imprisonment. Appellant appeals pro se from the denial of a petition and amended petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201 to -207 (Supp. 2001). The circuit court denied the petition without holding a hearing. We affirm.

Act 1780 provides that a writ of habeas corpus can 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 (Supp. 2001); see also Echols v. State, 350 Ark. 42, 44, 84 S.W.3d 424, 426 (2002) (per curiam). A number of predicate requirements must be met under Act 1780 before a circuit court can order testing be done. See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-201 to -203 (Supp. 2001). A circuit court need not hold a hearing if the petition and the files and records show that a petitioner is not entitled to relief. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-205(a) (Supp. 2001).

The claims raised in appellant's petitions and on appeal, however, involve assertions of pre-trial constitutional violations, judicial bias, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper and unconstitutional sentencing. These claims are not within the ambit of Act 1780. Further, a habeas corpus proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity to retry his case. Meny v. Norris, 340 Ark. 418, 420, 13 S.W.3d 143, 144 (2000). Nor does it substitute for apetition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Cr. P. 37. Cothrine v. State, 322 Ark. 112, 114, 907 S.W.2d 134, 135 (1995). The circuit court properly denied appellant's petitions without holding a hearing. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-205(a) (Supp. 2001).

Affirmed.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.