Carl Tice v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT  No.  CR 07­731  Opinion Delivered  CARL TICE  Appellant  January 31, 2008  v.  APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT  OF POPE COUNTY, CR 2003­180,  HON. DENNIS SUTTERFIELD,  JUDGE; MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS  COUNSEL  STATE OF ARKANSAS  Appellee  AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.  PER CURIAM  A  jury convicted  appellant  Carl  Tice  of  three  counts  of  raping  his  daughter.    Appellant  appealed the judgment and the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed.  Tice v. State, CACR 03­1314  (Ark.  App.  Dec.  15,  2004).  Appellant  timely  filed  in  the  trial  court  a  pro  se  petition  for  postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1.  The trial court appointed counsel to represent  appellant in the Rule 37.1 proceeding, and, following a hearing, the petition was denied.  On appeal,  this court reversed and remanded for findings as to instructions to counsel, compliance with those  instructions, and an order in compliance with Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.3(c).  Tice v. State, CR 06­114  (Ark. Nov. 16, 2006) (per curiam).  On remand, counsel filed an amended petition and the petition,  as amended, was again denied.  Counsel appointed to represent appellant in his Rule 37.1 proceeding, Mr. J. Michael Helms,  has now filed in this court a brief asserting that appellant’s appeal of the order denying postconviction  relief has no merit, and a motion requesting that he be granted permission to withdraw as counsel. While a “no­merit” brief is typically filed in a direct appeal from a judgment, this court has allowed  the filing of no­merit briefs in postconviction appeals.  See Hewitt v. State, 362 Ark. 369, 208 S.W.3d  185 (2005) (per curiam); Brady v. State, 346 Ark. 298, 57 S.W.3d 691 (2001) (per curiam).  Anders  v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4­3(j)(1) set requirements for  the withdrawal of counsel for a defendant in a criminal case after a notice of appeal has been filed on  the basis that an appeal is without merit.  Under Rule 4­3, an attorney who wishes to withdraw from an appeal must abstract and brief  all of the rulings that were adverse to his client, listing those rulings in his argument.  Mr. Helms  indicates in his brief that there were six adverse rulings, although he also contends, without further  elaboration, that there was no issue preserved for appeal.  He nevertheless addressed in his brief six  grounds for relief from the amended petition.  On review of an order entered in a Rule 37.1 proceeding, we need only consider preliminary  procedural matters, any denial of an evidentiary hearing, and those rulings contained within the order  denying postconviction relief, as an appellant has an obligation to obtain a ruling on any issue to be  preserved for appeal.  See Howard v. State, 367 Ark. 18, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2006); Beshears v. State,  340 Ark. 70, 8 S.W.3d 32 (2000).  The trial court’s order addressed only six grounds for relief from  the amended petition, finding that the petition was inadequate as to each claim in failing to state facts  for a showing that appellant was entitled to relief.  Those six issues were not fully addressed by the  trial court because the amended petition was not properly verified, and we accordingly affirm the  denial of postconviction relief and grant the motion to be relieved.  Our instructions to the trial court on remand required clarification as to whether appellant was  to  be  permitted  to  amend  the  petition,  with assistance  from  Mr.  Helms.    Mr.  Helms  did  file  an ­2­  amended petition and the trial court  accepted it; the order clearly addressed  only those grounds  presented in the amended petition and did not refer to the previous petition.  While the trial court  granted permission to amend the petition, the amended petition did not comply with the verification  requirements under Rule 37.1(d), and the trial court could not consider the grounds presented in the  amended petition.  Rule 37.1(d) provides the form of affidavit, to be sworn before a notary or other official  authorized  to  administer  oaths,  required  to  appear  on  the  petition.    Here,  appellant  signed  the  amended petition and his signature was notarized, but without any affidavit confirming the oath that  was  sworn.  As  no  affidavit  in  substantially  the  form  provided  in  Rule  37.1(d)  appeared  on  the  amended petition, the verification and the amended petition were deficient.  See Bunch v. State, 370  Ark. 113, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2007) (per curiam).  The  trial court could not consider the issues in the  amended petition.  Id.  The trial court therefore correctly denied postconviction relief on all grounds  set out in the amended petition.  In accordance with Anders and Rule 4­3(j)(2), appellant was provided with a copy of the brief  and motion to be relieved and has submitted pro se points for reversal.  We need not address the  merits of the pro se points. To the extent that the points do not simply overlap with and reassert the  issues raised in the brief, appellant’s arguments fail for the same reason as those made by Mr. Helms  in the brief.  Because the amended petition was not properly verified, the trial court could not grant  postconviction relief under Rule 37.  Affirmed; motion granted. ­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.