Steven Pinder v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT  No.  CR 07­710  Opinion Delivered  STEVEN PINDER  Appellant  v.  STATE OF ARKANSAS  Appellee  January 17, 2008  PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF  CERTIORARI AND REQUEST FOR  EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE  APPELLANT’S BRIEF AND PRO SE  MOTION FOR DUPLICATION OF  BRIEF AT PUBLIC EXPENSE  [CIRCUIT COURT OF COLUMBIA  COUNTY, CR 2002­30, HON.  RUSSELL ROGERS, JUDGE]  PETITION FOR WRIT OF  CERTIORARI GRANTED IN PART  AND DENIED IN PART; REQUEST  FOR EXTENSION OF BRIEF TIME  MOOT; MOTION FOR DUPLICATION  DENIED.  PER CURIAM  In  2002,  appellant  Steven  Pinder  was  found  guilty by a  jury of two  counts  of rape  and  sentenced to life imprisonment on each count.  We affirmed.  Pinder v. State, 357 Ark. 275, 166  S.W.3d 49 (2004).  Subsequently, appellant sought relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1.  The trial  court denied the petition and appellant has filed an appeal from that denial.  Previously, appellant filed in this court a petition for writ of certiorari to complete the record  on appeal, which we treated as a motion for access to  the  record  and granted.  In addition, we  granted appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his brief­in­chief.  Pinder v. State, CR 07­710  (Ark. Nov. 1, 2007) (per curiam). Now before us are appellant’s pro se petition for writ of certiorari and request for extension  of time to file appellant’s brief and pro se motion for duplication of his brief at public expense.  In his  current petition for certiorari, appellant asserts that although his notice of appeal designated the entire  record below to  be brought  up on appeal, the record filed in this court does not contain a large  number of documents and pleadings, including the original petition for postconviction relief, certain  orders of the trial court and hearing transcripts.  He seeks a writ of certiorari to direct the circuit  court  clerk  and  the  court  reporter to correct any omissions and errors in the record in order to  complete the record on appeal.  After filing the petition for writ of certiorari and the request for extension of time, appellant  tendered his brief with a motion asking that it be duplicated at public expense.  As appellant has  tendered his brief, the request for additional brief time is moot.  It would also appear that he has  abandoned the request for a more complete record.  In the petition, appellant moreover failed to  explain the significance of any item allegedly missing, with the exception of the original Rule 37.1  petition.  Therefore, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari in all respects except the request that  the original Rule 37.1 petition be brought up.  The original petition is necessary to the record for this  appeal.  Regarding appellant’s request that his brief be duplicated at public expense, there is no right  under our rules or any constitutional provision to have a brief or a portion of a brief in a civil case  duplicated at public expense.  See Maxie v. Gaines, 317 Ark. 229, 876 S.W.2d 572 (1994) (per  curiam).  Nevertheless, in those cases where the indigent appellant makes a substantial showing in  a motion that  the appeal has merit  and  that he or she cannot provide the court with a sufficient  number of copies of the brief, we will request that the Attorney General duplicate the brief.  Here, ­2­  appellant has failed to show substantial merit to the appeal, and thus has not stated any basis for the  brief to be duplicated at public expense.  The brief tendered by appellant contains the necessary addendum, including a copy of the Rule  37.1  petition  missing  from  the  record.  Therefore,  the  brief  will  be  filed  in  the  court  provided  appellant submits an additional fifteen copies within thirty days.  Petition for writ of certiorari granted in part and denied in part; request for extension of brief  time moot; motion for duplication denied. ­3­ 

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.