Ralph Douthitt v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT  No.  CR 07­527  Opinion Delivered  December 13, 2007  PRO SE MOTION TO FILE REPLY  BRIEF AND SUPPLEMENTAL  ADDENDUM [CIRCUIT COURT OF  INDEPENDENCE COUNTY, CR 95­58,  HON. JOHN DAN KEMP, JUDGE]  RALPH DOUTHITT  Appellant  v.  STATE OF ARKANSAS  Appellee  APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT  PER CURIAM  In 1995, appellant Ralph Douthitt was convicted by a jury of multiple counts of felony rape,  incest and violation of a minor and sentenced to 174 years’ imprisonment.  We affirmed.  Douthitt  v. State, 326 Ark. 794, 935 S.W.2d 241 (1996).  In 2006, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001, as  amended by Act 2250 of 2005 and codified as Ark. Code Ann. §§16­112­201–16­112­208 (Repl.  2006).  The act 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 he or she was convicted.  The  trial court denied the petition and this court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was clearly  without merit.  Douthitt v. State, 366 Ark. 579, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2007) (per curiam).  In 2007, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se “second or successive petition to vacate  and/or set  aside judgment” pursuant  to  Act  1780.  The trial court  denied  the petition without a  hearing, and appellant has lodged an appeal here from the order.  Now before us is appellant’s pro se motion to file a reply brief and supplemental addendum. We need not consider the motion as it is apparent that appellant could not prevail in this appeal if it  were permitted to go forward.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and hold the motion moot.  An  appeal from  an  order that denied a petition for postconviction relief will not be permitted to go  forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail.  Pardue v. State, 338 Ark. 606, 999  S.W.2d 198 (1999) (per curiam); Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996) (per curiam).  Act 1780 involves scientific testing of evidence introduced at trial.  See Ark. Code Ann. § 16­  112­103(a)(1) (Repl. 2006) and sections 16­112­201–12­112­208; see also Echols v. State, 350 Ark.  42,  84  S.W.3d  424  (2002)  (per  curiam)  (decision  under  prior  law).  A  number  of  predicate  requirements must be met under Act 1780 before a circuit court can order that testing be done.  See  sections 16­112­201–16­112­203.  Here, the trial court  dismissed appellant’s Act  1780 petition pursuant to section 16­112­  205(d), which states:  The court may summarily deny a second or successive petition for similar relief on behalf of  the same petitioner and may summarily deny a petition if the issues raised in it have previously  been decided by the Arkansas Court of Appeals or the Arkansas Supreme Court in the same  case.  In the previous petition filed under the act, appellant claimed that the evidence used to convict him  was obtained as a result of an unconstitutional search and seizure.  In the instant petition, appellant  sought to use scientific testing to prove that the search conducted by the police was initiated prior  to  authorization  of  the  search  by  the  victim  and  was  unconstitutional.    Because  appellant  has  previously raised the issue of an unconstitutional search and seizure in his prior Act 1780 petition and  has made the same argument in the instant petition, the trial court did not err in denying a successive  petition for similar relief. ­2­  Moreover, this argument presents a basis for summary denial of the Act 1780 petition. Claims  pertaining to the admissibility of evidence are not within the purview of a proceeding under the  statute.  Also, appellant’s evidentiary argument does not involve actual scientific testing of specific  evidence that was introduced at trial to secure appellant’s conviction, pursuant to section 16­112­202  (1).  Appeal dismissed; motion moot. ­3­ 

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.