Deborah K. Pope v. State of Arkansas

Annotate this Case
cr04-950

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

No. CR 04-950

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

DEBORAH K. POPE

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered October 6, 2005

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, CR 2002-560,CR 2003-161, CR2003-298A, HON. GARY RAY COTTRELL, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

PER CURIAM

Deborah K. Pope entered guilty pleas to possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, two counts of manufacture of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, and simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, as part of a negotiated plea agreement. The trial court sentenced her to concurrent sentences of 180 months' imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction on each charge, with an additional sixty months suspended on the possession of drug paraphernalia charge, and an additional 180 months suspended on each of the other charges. Pope then filed a timely petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, which was denied by written order following a hearing. She now brings this appeal of that order.

We do not reach the merits of appellant's arguments on appeal because appellant's petition was not properly verified. Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1(d) requires that the petition be verified. The verification requirement for a postconviction relief petition is of substantive importance to prevent perjury. Carey v. State, 268 Ark. 332, 596 S.W.2d 688 (1980). To serve this purpose, a petitioner must execute the verification, and if the petitioner is represented by counsel, counsel may not sign and verify the petition for her. Boyle v. State, Ark. , S.W.3d (May 5, 2005) (per curiam).

Since the petition was not verified as required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1(d), dismissal of the petition was appropriate. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of postconviction relief.

Affirmed.

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.