Eddie Ewings v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

No. CR 05-411

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

EDDIE EWINGS

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

Opinion Delivered June 30, 2005

PRO SE MOTION TO FILE HANDWRITTEN BRIEF AND FOR DUPLICATION OF BRIEF AT PUBLIC EXPENSE [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CR 2001-1854, HON. BARRY SIMS, JUDGE]

MOTION TO FILE HANDWRITTEN BRIEF AND FOR DUPLICATION OF BRIEF AT PUBLIC EXPENSE DENIED

PER CURIAM

Appellant Eddie Ewings was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Ewings v. State, 85 Ark. App. 411, 155 S.W.3d 715 (2004). He subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37, which was denied. Appellant has lodged an appeal of that order in this court.

Appellant also requested that he be appointed counsel to represent him in his Rule 37 appeal and that he have access to a copy of the record lodged in this appeal to prepare his brief. The motion for appointment of counsel was denied, and we granted his motion for access to a copy of the record. Ewings v. State, CR 05-411 (Ark. June 9, 2005) (per curiam).

Appellant now requests permission to file a handwritten brief and for duplication of the brief at public expense. There is no absolute right to file a handwritten brief on appeal. See Miner v. Furman, 318 Ark. 883, 887 S.W.2d 310 (1994) (per curiam); see also Green v. State, 277 Ark. 129, 639 S.W.2d 512 (1982) (per curiam). We have held, however, that if the pro se appellant makes a substantial showing that he is entitled to relief and that he does not have access to a typewriter or photocopier, we will accept a legible handwritten brief. Glick v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 417, 706 S.W.2d 178 (1986) (per curiam); see also Howard v. Lockhart, 300 Ark. 144, 777 S.W.2d 223(1989) (per curiam); Hayes v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 419, 706 S.W.2d 179 (1986) (per curiam). Appellant has failed to make such a showing; therefore, we deny his motion to file a handwritten brief.

We have further held that there is no right under our rules or any constitutional provision to have a brief in a postconviction or a civil case duplicated at public expense. See Maxie v. Gaines, 317 Ark. 229, 876 S.W.2d 572 (1994). Nevertheless, as with requests to file a handwritten brief, where the indigent appellant makes a substantial showing that the appeal has merit and that he cannot provide the court with the required number of copies of the brief, we will request the Attorney General to duplicate the brief. In the motion at bar, appellant has failed to offer a showing of substantial merit to the appeal. Accordingly, appellant will be required to submit seventeen copies of the brief in a form that conforms to our rules within forty days of the date of this opinion.

Motion to file handwritten brief and for duplication of brief at public expense denied.