Keith A. King v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

No. CR 02-645

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

KEITH ALLEN KING

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

Opinion Delivered January 6, 2005

APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. CR-2000-104 TO 108, HON. JAMES ROBERT MARSCHEWSKI, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

PER CURIAM

Appellant was convicted of six counts of commercial burglary and sentenced to an aggregate term of thirty-six years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. King v. State, 75 Ark. App. 405, 58 S.W.3d 875 (2001). Appellant then filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Cr. P. 37. The circuit court held a hearing and subsequently denied relief. We previously ordered rebriefing due to an abstracting deficiency. King v. State, CR 02-645 (Ark. Sept. 18, 2003)(per curiam) (unpublished). New briefs have been filed, and the appeal is again before us.

Appellant has abandoned the ineffective assistance of counsel issue raised in his original brief. In his new brief, he contends that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to argue that his pre-Miranda statement was coerced and for failing to seek suppression of evidence seized from appellant's nylon bag. After reviewing appellant's petition, his Rule 37 hearing, and the circuit court's order denying relief, we conclude that these arguments were not raised below and were not ruled on by the circuit court. Accordingly, we are precluded from considering them on appeal. See Nooner v. State, 339 Ark. 253, 256, 4 S.W.3d 497, 499 (1999).

In his reply brief, appellant contends that the arguments on appeal were raised below and were ruled upon. Although appellant's petition contained claims similar to those raised on appeal, the arguments raised in the petition were freestanding claims of trial error, not claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Affirmed.