Robert Lee Burnett v. State of Arkansas

Annotate this Case
cr89-220

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

May 20, 2004

ROBERT LEE BURNETT

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 89-220

PRO SE MOTION FOR PHOTOCOPY OF TRANSCRIPT AT PUBLIC EXPENSE [CIRCUIT COURT OF CROSS COUNTY, NO. CR 86-153]

MOTION DENIED

Per Curiam

In 1989, Robert Lee Burnett was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment without parole. We affirmed. Burnett v. State, 302 Ark. 279, 790 S.W.2d 137 (1990).

Burnett now seeks by pro se motion a photocopy at public expense of the transcript lodged on appeal. Petitioner states that he is in need of the transcript to prove his innocence, to show that there were constitutional violations at this trial, and to be able to file the correct proceeding in state court.

The motion is denied. A petitioner is not entitled to photocopying at public expense unless he or she demonstrates some compelling need for specific documentary evidence to support an allegation contained in a petition for postconviction relief. Moore v. State, 324 Ark. 453, 921 S.W.2d 606 (1996); Brooks v. State, 303 Ark. 188 S.W.2d 792 (1990); see Austin v. State, 287 Ark.

256, 697 S.W.2d 914 (1985). Indigency alone does not entitle a petitioner to photocopying at public expense. Washington v. State, 270 Ark. 840, 606 S.W.2d 365 (1980). Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is any timely postconviction remedy available to him at this time.

It should be noted that when an appeal has been lodged in this court, the appeal transcript remains permanently on file with the clerk. Persons may review a transcript in the clerk's office and photocopy all or portions of it. An incarcerated person desiring a photocopy of a transcript on file here may write this court, remit the photocopying fee, and request that the copy be mailed to the prison. All persons, including prisoners, must bear the cost of photocopying. Moore v. State, supra.

Motion denied.

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.