Steve Lenn Hill v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT  No.  CR 07­1107  Opinion Delivered January 24, 2008  PRO SE MOTION FOR ACCESS TO  TRANSCRIPT AND EXTENSION OF  TIME TO FILE BRIEF [CIRCUIT  COURT OF ARKANSAS COUNTY,  SOUTHERN DISTRICT, CR 2005­10,  HON. DAVID G. HENRY, JUDGE]  STEVE LENN HILL  Appellant  v.  STATE OF ARKANSAS  Appellee  APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION  MOOT.  PER CURIAM  In 2005, appellant  Steve  Lenn  Hill was convicted by a jury of residential burglary, three  counts of aggravated assault, three counts of kidnapping, first­degree battery and being a felon in  possession of a firearm.  He received an aggregate sentence of life imprisonment.  We affirmed.  Hill  v. State, 370 Ark. 102, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2007).  Subsequently, appellant timely filed in the trial court  a verified pro se petition under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1.  The trial court denied the petition without a  hearing, and appellant, proceeding pro se, has lodged an appeal here from the order.  Now before us is appellant’s pro se motion for access to transcript and extension of time to  file his brief.  We need not consider the motion as it is apparent that appellant could not prevail in this  appeal if it were permitted to go forward.  Pardue v. State, 338 Ark. 606, 999 S.W.2d 198 (1999)  (per curiam); Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996) (per curiam).  Accordingly, we  dismiss the appeal and hold the motion moot.  Appellant complained in his petition that he was actually innocent of the kidnapping charges, but framed the petition in terms of trial counsel’s failure to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence  related to those charges.  The majority of the petition recounted evidence introduced at trial, and set  out appellant’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to support his kidnapping convictions.  Appellant’s claim of actual innocence amounted to a direct challenge to the sufficiency of the  evidence supporting his kidnapping convictions.  Sufficiency challenges cannot be raised in Rule 37  proceedings.  Sanford v. State, 342 Ark. 22, 25 S.W.3d 414 (2000).  Moreover, the weighing of evidence lies within the province of the jury, and the jury is free  to believe all or part of a witness’s testimony.  Williams v. State, 351 Ark. 215, 91 S.W.3d 54 (2002),  cert. denied, 539 U.S. 907 (2003).  It was entirely the jury’s task to assess the credibility of witnesses.  Id.  As a result, appellant did not demonstrate that counsel could have raised a successful challenge  to the evidence adduced at trial.  Appeal dismissed; motion moot. ­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.