Clinton Flowers v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

May 27, 2004

CLINTON FLOWERS

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 03-652

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CRITTENDEN COUNTY, CR 97-506, -507, & -1210, HONORABLE JOHN NELSON FOGLEMAN, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Per Curiam

Appellant pleaded guilty to attempted capital murder, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping in 1997. The trial court sentenced appellant to concurrent terms of forty years' imprisonment for the attempted capital murder and aggravated robbery convictions, and suspended imposition of sentence of twenty-five years' imprisonment for the kidnapping conviction. This court later modified appellant's judgment and commitment order to show a sentence of thirty years' imprisonment for the attempted capital murder conviction because the sentence imposed exceeded the statutory maximum of thirty years for a Class A felony. Flowers v. Norris, No. 00-1049, slip op. (Ark. Dec. 20, 2001)(per curiam)(unpublished). And, in a separate appeal, this court held that the kidnapping conviction merged with the attempted capital murder conviction. Flowers v. Norris, 347 Ark. 760, 68 S.W.3d 289 (2002). More recently, we dismissed appellant's appeal of the denial of his petition claiming Rule 37 and Rule 26 relief because he untimely filed it. Flowers v. State, No. CR 02-1127, slip op. (Ark. March 6, 2002)(per curiam)(unpublished).

Appellant now appeals pro se from the denial of a 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).

Appellant raised numerous claims in his petition, and the circuit court concluded that none of them advanced any claim that additional scientific testing would establish appellant's actual innocence. On appeal, appellant reasserts four broad claims raised in his petition. He contends that the trial court constitutionally erred in accepting his guilty plea and sentencing him, that his sentence is illegal, that he was coerced to plead guilty, that he was maliciously prosecuted, that his trial counsel was ineffective in several instances relating to his guilty plea and sentencing, and that his confession was coerced. In making these claims, appellant again raises arguments that previously led to the modification of his judgment and commitment order by this court. Flowers v. Norris, 347 Ark. 760, 68 S.W.3d 289 (2002); Flowers v. Norris, No. 00-1049, slip op. (Ark. Dec. 20, 2001)(per curiam)(unpublished).

None of appellant's claims on appeal fall within the ambit of Act 1780. They raise various constitutional and statutory claims unrelated to any scientific testing of evidence to demonstrate appellant's actual innocence. 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 a petition 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.