Henry J. Bunch v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CACR 05-726
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Opinion Delivered
April 20, 2006
HENRY J. BUNCH
Petitioner
PRO SE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPT [CIRCUIT
COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, CR
2004-2659-1]
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
MOTION DENIED
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Henry J. Bunch was found guilty of aggravated robbery, three counts of attempted
capital murder, felon in possession of a firearm, theft by receiving, possession of methamphetamine,
possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, and simultaneous
possession of drugs and a firearm. Petitioner was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment for the
aggravated robbery charge, 300 months for the simultaneous possession charge, and an aggregate
of 480 months on the remaining offenses, with the sentences for the aggravated robbery and
simultaneous possession charges to run consecutively to each other and the remaining charges to run
concurrently, for a total of 1,140 months’ imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed
the judgment with the modification that the aggravated robbery charge must be merged into one of
the attempted-capital-murder charges. Bunch v. State, ___ Ark. App. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___
(February 15, 2006). Following the decision of the court of appeals, petitioner filed in this court a
pro se motion for transcript, which was denied.1 Bunch v. State, CACR 05-726 (Ark. March 23,
1
For clerical purposes, the motion has been filed under the docket number assigned to
the direct appeal of the judgment which was lodged in the court of appeals. This court
decides motions for transcripts because such motions are considered to be requests for
postconviction relief. See Williams v. State, 273 Ark. 315, 619 S.W.2d 628 (1981) (per
curiam).
2006) (per curiam). Petitioner now requests reconsideration of our decision to deny the motion for
transcript.
In support of his motion for reconsideration, petitioner again provides specific anticipated
points, and this time provides greater detail in describing the claims he anticipates raising in his
petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. As we noted in our previous decision,
a petitioner is not entitled to access a trial record unless there is a specific point which cannot be
raised in a postconviction proceeding without the record or some portion of it. See Thomas v. State,
328 Ark. 753, 945 S.W.2d 939 (1997) (per curiam). Once again, he does not show how the
transcript is necessary or that those points cannot be properly raised without access to the transcript.
For example, petitioner indicates he would raise a claim that counsel was ineffective for
failure to move to suppress a video tape, and he provides great detail as to the events leading up to
the actions that apparently appeared in the video. Petitioner asserts that he advised counsel that
another person, rather than petitioner, was actually the person appearing in the video and that counsel
refused to bring this defense. While petitioner urges that the trial proceedings concerning the video
are relevant to this issue, he still fails to explain how this prevents him from raising the argument
in a Rule 37.1 petition.
Petitioner explains that he may be able to use the transcript to bolster his arguments, but he
has not shown how the transcript is essential to raising his arguments in a Rule 37.1 petition. While
allegations must have a factual basis, providing evidence in support of his arguments is simply not
necessary at this stage in the proceedings, and petitioner can raise his arguments, including specific
allegations, without it. The trial court may conduct an evidentiary hearing, if appropriate.
We find that petitioner has stated no reason to revisit our previous decision on this issue.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
Motion denied.
-2-
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.
