Billy Reece Crain v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

September 23, 2004

BILLY REECE CRAIN

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 03-734

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GRANT COUNTY, CR 99-67-1, HONORABLE CHRIS E. WILLIAMS, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Per Curiam

Appellant was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent to manufacture, and maintaining a drug premises. He was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Crain v. State, 78 Ark. App. 153, 79 S.W.3d 406 (2002). Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, which was denied, and w

e dismissed his appeal. Crain v. State, CR 03-68 (Ark. Mar. 20, 2003) (per curiam). He now appeals the dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus on a claim of actual innocence pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201 to -207 (Supp. 2001). We affirm.

Act 1780 was passed by the General Assembly in response to nationwide concerns that innocent persons were being imprisoned and even executed for crimes that they did not commit. Echols v. State, 350 Ark. 42, 44, 84 S.W.3d 424, 426 (2002) (per curiam). The act provides that a writ of habeas corpus could issue based upon new scientific evidence proving a person actually innocent of the offense or offenses for which he was convicted. See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-103(a)(1) and 16-12-201 to -207. Under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201:

(a) Except when direct appeal is available, a person convicted of a crime may commence a proceeding to secure relief by filing a petition in the court in which the conviction was entered to vacate and set aside the judgment and to discharge the petitioner or to resentence the petitioner or grant a new trial or correct the sentence or make other disposition as may be appropriate, if the person claims that:

(1) Scientific evidence not available at trial establishes the petitioner's actual innocence; or

(2) The scientific predicate for the claim could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence and the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact-finder would find the petitioner guilty of the underlying offense.

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201(a).

Appellant's first claim on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his petition before he had a chance to respond within the time permitted by Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(a) and (g) (2003). We note that appellant did file a reply on February 10, 2003, prior to the trial court's April 16, 2003 denial of relief; therefore, the matter is moot. Moreover, we find no merit to this claim because the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to this case as appellant claims.

This case arises from appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Act 1780, codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201 to -207, and included in those statutes are rules on both form and time of pleading. According to Ark. R. Civ. P. 81(a), the rules of civil procedure shall

apply to all civil proceedings cognizable in circuit court except when a statute which creates a right, remedy, or proceeding specifically provides a different procedure, in which case the procedure so specified shall apply.

Section 16-112-204(a) provides, in pertinent part, that the State must file its response within 20 days of the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Section 16-112-204(b) provides that no other pleadings are necessary unless ordered by the court except that the court may permit the petition's withdrawal or amendment or an amendment to the answer. A reply is not authorized by statute. Accordingly, we find no merit and affirm.

Appellant goes on to raise various claims in an attempt to relitigate the validity of the search warrant used to search his residence, an issue previously decided by the court of appeals. See Crain, supra. Even if appellant had raised this issue in his petition, which he did not, it would not be considered as it is outside the purview of Act 1780. A habeas corpus proceeding does not afford a prisoner an opportunity to retry his case. Meny v. Norris, 340 Ark. 418, 420, 13 S.W.3d 143, 144 (2000). Nor is it a substitute for a petition for postconviction relief. Cothrine v. State, 322 Ark. 112, 114, 907 S.W.2d 134, 135 (1995). Therefore, this claim is procedurally barred.

Appellant also claims that he is entitled to relief because DNA testing performed on three bloody syringes seized from appellant's residence would prove his actual innocence. In denying the petition, the trial court held that the facts showed that this particular DNA testing was available to appellant at the time of his trial and could have been performed through the exercise of due diligence. Moreover, the court held that said proof, in light of the evidence as a whole, would not have been sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that appellant was actually innocent.

The purpose of passing Act 1780 was to change Arkansas laws and procedures to accommodate the "advent of new technologies enhancing the ability to analyze scientific evidence." Echols, 350 Ark. at 44, 84 S.W.3d at 426. The statute, by its terms, is inapplicable to scientific testing that was available to the convicted person at the time of trial. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201(a)(1).

Moreover, even assuming that DNA evidence would show that the blood recovered from the syringes belonged to someone other than appellant, that fact would not "establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact-finder would find the petitioner guilty of the underlying offense." Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201(a)(2). Such testing on the syringes would not negate appellant's knowledge of and control over the methamphetamine laboratory in his home nor his possession of items used to manufacture methamphetamine. Because appellant is not entitled to relief on this point, we affirm the ruling below.

Appellant's final claim is that the trial court erred in denying his petition without a hearing. A trial court need not hold a hearing if the petition and the files and records show that a petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-205(a). As stated above, none of appellant's allegations warrant relief; therefore, the trial court properly denied appellant's petition without a hearing.

Affirmed.