Barry G. Aaron v. Larry Norris; State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
08-700
Opinion Delivered
BARRY G. AARON
Petitioner
October 9, 2008
PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED
APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF HOT
SPRING COUNTY, CV 2007-160, HON.
PHILLIP H. SHIRRON, JUDGE]
v.
LARRY NORRIS; STATE OF
ARKANSAS
Respondents
MOTION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Now before us is petitioner Barry G. Aaron’s pro se motion for belated appeal pursuant to
Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 2(e). Therein, he seeks to proceed with the appeal
of the trial court’s order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was being
detained without lawful authority, pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-112-103 (Repl. 2006).
We need not consider petitioner’s reasons for failing to perfect the appeal because it is clear that
petitioner could not prevail if permitted to go forward. Lukach v. State, 369 Ark. 475, 255 S.W.3d
832 (2007) (per curiam).
Any petition for writ of habeas corpus to effect the release of a prisoner is properly addressed
to the circuit court in the county in which the prisoner is held in custody, unless the petition is filed
pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001.1 Id. A circuit court does not have the authority to release a prisoner
1
Act 1780 of 2001, as amended by Act 2250 of 2005, and codified as Arkansas Code Annotated
§§ 16-112-201 to -208 (Repl. 2006), provides that a writ of habeas corpus can issue based upon new
scientific evidence proving a person actually innocent of the offense or offenses for which he or she was
convicted.
not in custody within that court’s jurisdiction pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus. Id.
Petitioner was incarcerated in Hot Spring County when he filed the petition for writ of habeas
corpus, but he is now incarcerated in Jefferson County. Hot Spring County, therefore, lacks personal
jurisdiction over petitioner, and it could not grant the relief requested. Accordingly, petitioner could
not prevail on the petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to section 16-112-103.
As a second basis for relief, petitioner contended that certain evidence presented at trial
involving the fluids retrieved from the victim was tested using an inadequate method and should
have been excluded from evidence. He averred that another testing method would have indicated
unequivocally that petitioner’s semen was not present and thereby proved his actual innocence.
To the extent that petitioner was seeking additional scientific testing, such a request is only
cognizable under Act 1780 of 2001. A petition for writ of habeas corpus under Act 1780 is properly
filed in the court in which the conviction was entered here, Miller County, and not in the county in
which a prisoner is incarcerated. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201(a); Lukach, supra. Petitioner’s
criminal trial was not conducted in Hot Spring County, and this argument presents no basis for relief.
Motion denied.
Gunter, J., not participating.
-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.
