Edward Loveless v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT  No.  CR 05­648 & CACR 04­525  Opinion Delivered  EDWARD LOVELESS  Petitioner  v.  STATE OF ARKANSAS  Respondent  March 6, 2008  PRO SE REQUEST FOR  DETERMINATION AND RULING  CONCERNING A REQUEST FOR  EXTRAORDINARY WRIT [CIRCUIT  COURT OF POPE COUNTY, CR 2002­  658, CR 2003­115]  PRO SE REQUEST TREATED AS  SECOND MOTION FOR  RECONSIDERATION AND DENIED.  PER CURIAM  Now before us is a pro se request filed by petitioner Edward Loveless in which he seeks a  determination and ruling concerning a prior request for extraordinary writ.  For the reasons set forth  below, the pro se request is treated as a second motion for reconsideration and denied.  A history of petitioner’s filings in this court is helpful in understanding the instant petition.  Petitioner appealed from a criminal judgment of conviction to the Arkansas Court of Appeals and the  judgment was affirmed.  Loveless v. State, CACR 04­525 (Ark. App. Mar. 2, 2005).  Subsequently,  he sought relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 and the trial court denied the petition.  Petitioner  appealed the denial of the petition to this court.  A briefing schedule was set, and petitioner failed to  file his brief­in­chief resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.  Loveless v. State, CR 05­648 (Ark. Jan.  26, 2006) (per curiam).  Prior to the January 26, 2006, dismissal, petitioner filed a number of motions and petitions  in the Rule 37.1 appeal.  These pleadings included a motion to stay the appeal, a petition for writ of certiorari to be allowed to pursue a writ of error coram nobis, and a petition to combine the appeal  with the petition for writ of certiorari.  The motion to stay the appeal and the petition for writ of  certiorari were denied, thus the motion to combine the appeal with the petition for writ of certiorari  was moot.  Loveless v. State, CR 05­648 (Ark. Oct. 20, 2005) (per curiam).  The dismissal of the  appeal decided on January 26, 2006, also denied a motion for reconsideration of the October 20,  2005, decision.  Thereafter, petitioner filed in this court two petitions requesting a copy of the records on file  with this court, including trial transcripts.  Petitioner did not identify the appellate case to which he  referred, so the petitions were considered as to both the criminal and postconviction cases.  On January 16, 2007, petitioner filed a “petition for use of transcript” in this court.  Petitioner  made no demonstration of some compelling need for specific documentary evidence to support a  claim for postconviction relief, and no petition for postconviction relief was pending at that time.  Therefore, the petition was denied.  Loveless v. State, CR 05­648 and CACR 04­525 (Ark. Feb. 1,  2007) (per curiam) (citing Austin v. State, 287 Ark. 256, 697 S.W.2d 914 (1985) (per curiam)).  In  that  ruling,  we  also  stated  that  access  to  the  record  would  entail  photocopying  any  materials  requested, and that petitioner was not entitled to photocopying at state expense, following the ruling  in Moore v. State, 324 Ark. 453, 921 S.W.2d 606 (1996) (per curiam).  Next, petitioner filed a “petition for rehearing and request for extraordinary writ” on February  15, 2007, which we treated as a motion for reconsideration of our February 1, 2007, denial of the  January 2007 petition.  That motion for reconsideration reiterated a request for the records in his  appeals, and added that petitioner only sought use of the electronic forms of the documents.  In  denying the motion for reconsideration, we held that no electronic forms of documents are maintained ­2­  by our clerk, and that petitioner did not establish a compelling need for specific documentary evidence  to support a claim for postconviction relief.  Loveless v. State, CR 05­648 and CACR 04­525 (Ark.  Mar. 1, 2007) (per curiam).  Now before us is petitioner’s “request for determination and ruling concerning a request for  extraordinary writ filed February 15, 2007” filed on December 20, 2007.  In this pleading, it is not  clear as to the kind of relief that is being requested or the exact nature of the request.  First, petitioner  refers to the February 15, 2007, pleading as an independent request for relief, although we treated  that  pleading as a motion for reconsideration  of our denial of the January 2007 petition.  Next,  petitioner contends that this court misinterpreted his prior pleadings.  He complains that he has been  deprived of various documents and access to the case records, and seeks reconsideration of his prior  petition.  The underpinning of the petition before us is appellant’s use of a trial transcript.  Thus, we  determine that the relief requested is most likely intended to be a second motion for reconsideration  1  of the denial of the January 2007 petition.  Although petitioner insists to the contrary, no documents contained in the records maintained  by our clerk are available by electronic means.  As a result, use of a trial transcript or record on  appeal requires actual physical access to the documents.  Because only licensed attorneys may check  out a record from the clerk’s office, and petitioner is incarcerated and cannot come to the clerk’s  office to examine the record, the only relief that can be afforded him is to make a photocopy of the  material.  We are therefore required to treat his petition as one for a photocopy of the record on  appeal, which is the same request made in the January 2007 petition and the February 2007 motion 1  Petitioner also complains in the present motion that we neglected to rule on his extraordinary writ  request.  At no point has petitioner explained the meaning or precise function of an “extraordinary writ,”  but he does reiterate his request for use of a transcript. ­3­  for reconsideration.  Here, petitioner has not made a showing of entitlement to a copy of the records from his prior  appeals.  He has failed to show some compelling need for specific documentary evidence to support  a claim for postconviction relief, and no postconviction petition is pending at this time. Austin, supra.  Also, petitioner is not entitled to photocopying at state expense. Moore, supra. Therefore, petitioner  has not demonstrated that there was some error of fact or law in the February 1, 2007, decision that  would merit reconsideration of the denial of the January 2007 petition for access to the material on  file here.  Pro se request treated as second motion for reconsideration and denied. ­4­ 

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.