Victor H. Flores v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

OCTOBER 18, 2001

VICTOR H. FLORES APPELLANT

VS.

STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE

CR 00-106

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, NO. CR-98-1302, HON. WILLIAM A. STOREY, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant Victor H. Flores was arrested and charged with one count of possession of an illegal substance, with intent to deliver, a Class Y felony, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class C felony. Appellant ultimately pled guilty to the charge of possession, with intent to deliver. Judgment was entered on December 22, 1998, and Appellant was sentenced to a term of twenty years' imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction.

On June 18, 1999, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief, which he styled a "motion to correct an illegal sentence." In his petition, Appellant alleged three points of error: (1) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by charging Appellant with a Class Y felony in light of the facts and circumstances of his arrest; (2) he was subjected to ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to research the law as it related to his criminal liability, and also convinced Appellant to enter a plea of guilty; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion, and lacked jurisdiction, by accepting Appellant's guilty plea because said plea was illegally obtained. The trialcourt denied Appellant's petition on the basis that it was not filed within the ninety day time period as required under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c).

Appellant then filed a second petition for postconviction relief, styled "petition for writ of habeas corpus," alleging the exact same errors as in his initial petition. The trial court subsequently denied this second petition, and Appellant now appeals that order. The trial court correctly denied Appellant's second petition because while it was styled as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the allegations raised in the petition were identical to the allegations raised in his first petition for postconviction relief and properly within the purview of Rule 37. An appellant may not reassert issues which are properly addressed under Rule 37 by simply renaming the petition and filing it a second time. Nation v. State, 292 Ark. 149, 728 S.W.2d 513 (1987).

Affirmed.