Randall Thomas McArty v. Henry Morgan, Prosecuting Attorney

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

No. 04-1086

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

RANDALL THOMAS MCARTY

Appellant

v.

HENRY MORGAN, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY

Appellee

Opinion Delivered January 5, 2006

PRO SE PETITION FOR REHEARING [CIRCUIT COURT OF CLARK COUNTY, CV 2002-208, HON. JOHN ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE]

PETITION DENIED

PER CURIAM

In 1993, Randall Thomas McArty was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirmed. McArty v. State, 316 Ark. 35, 871 S.W.2d 346 (1994).

McArty subsequently filed a petition in the trial court contending that the prosecuting attorney, Henry Morgan, had failed to provide him with copies of the autopsy photographs and the medical examiner's diagrams from his criminal trial that he had requested pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), codified as Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-101 et seq. The trial court dismissed the petition on a finding that the prosecutor had made the material available at a reasonable fee. We reversed and remanded that order on the ground that a hearing should have been held on the FOIA request. McArty v. State, CR 03-293 (Ark. May, 20, 2004) (per curiam).

On remand, the trial court again denied the petition, finding that Morgan had complied with the FOIA request and provided appellant with all the documents in Morgan's possession. From that order McArty appealed. We affirmed. McArty v. Morgan, 04-1086 (Ark. Nov. 3, 2005) (per curiam). Appellant now brings this petition for rehearing of that decision.

Rule 2-3(g) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court provides that a petition for rehearing should be used to call attention to specific errors of law or fact which the opinion is thought to contain and not to repeat arguments already considered and rejected by this court. The petition must cite to facts the appellant contends were overlooked and provide references to the abstract or addendum as required by Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 2-3(h). Appellant here fails to provide any such citations and he alleges no error of law or fact that would merit rehearing.

Appellant's sole assertion in his petition for rehearing is that Morgan failed to comply with the FOIA request, which violated appellant's right to due process of law. This assertion is a repetition of appellant's arguments that have already been considered and rejected by this court. 

Petition denied.