James Fields v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

March 4, 2004

JAMES FIELDS

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CACR 01-63

PRO SE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION FOR PHOTOCOPY OF APPELLANT'S BRIEF AT PUBLIC EXPENSE [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CR 98-3524]

MOTION DENIED

Per Curiam

In 2000, James Fields was found guilty by a jury of aggravated robbery and theft of property for which an aggregate term of 600 months' imprisonment was imposed. The court of appeals affirmed. Fields v. State, CACR 01-63 (Ark. App. September 12, 2001).

In 2003, Fields sought by pro se motion a photocopy at public expense of the appellant's brief filed on appeal .1 As a basis for the request, petitioner Fields stated only that his attorney did not provide him with a copy of the brief. The motion was denied. Fields v. State, CACR 01-63 (Ark. December 11, 2003) (per curiam). Petitioner now asks that the motion be reconsidered.

In the motion for reconsideration, petitioner changes the relief from that sought in the original motion. In the original motion, he requested a copy of the appellant's brief at public expense. In the motion for reconsideration, he requests a copy of the opinion issued by the court of appeals. He also asks that this court overturn the decision rendered by the court of appeals.

The motion for reconsideration is denied. Petitioner has not alleged that there was any error of fact or law in the decision denying the original motion. As to petitioner's new request that he be provided with a copy of the opinion issued on direct appeal, a motion for reconsideration is not a means to make requests for relief not contained in the original motion.

With respect to the request that this court overturn the decision of the court of appeals, petitioner's remedy was a timely petition for review filed in this court pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 2-4 after the decision was rendered. Any request that this court review the decision now is not in accordance with the prevailing rules of procedure.

Motion denied.

1 For clerical purposes, the motion was filed under the docket number assigned to the direct appeal of the judgment which was lodged in the court of appeals. See Williams v. State, 273 Ark. 315, 619 S.W.2d 628 (1981).