Lepolian Ford a/k/a Leopoloian Ford v. State of Arkansas

Annotate this Case
cr02-174

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

MAY 2, 2002

LEPOLIAN FORD

a/k/a Leopoloian Ford

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 02-174

PRO SE MOTIONS FOR COPY OF RECORD AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CR 87-1307, JOHN W. LANGSTON, JUDGE]

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS MOOT

In 1988, Lepolian Ford was found guilty by a jury in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirmed. Ford v. State, 297 Ark. 77, 759 S.W.2d 556 (1988). On August 13, 2001, Ford who was incarcerated in Jefferson County, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court in Pulaski County. The petition was denied, and the record on appeal from that order has been lodged here. Appellant Ford now seeks by pro se motion a copy of the record and appointment of counsel.

As we find that appellant could not be successful on appeal, the appeal is dismissed. The motions are moot. This court has consistently held that an appeal of the denial of 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); Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996); Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994); Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 376 (1994).

Appellant did not contend in the petition for writ of habeas corpus that he was in custody in Pulaski County when he filed the petition there, and his address on the petition reflected that he was in fact incarcerated in Jefferson County. The Circuit Court of Pulaski County did not have jurisdiction to release on a writ of habeas corpus a prisoner not in custody within that county. Pardue, supra; Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark. 321, 819 S.W.2d 702 (1991).

Motions denied and appeal dismissed.

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.