Williams v. Norris
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
08-993
Opinion Delivered
BENJAMIN WILLIAMS, JR.
Petitioner
v.
LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR,
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION
Respondent
March 5, 2009
PRO SE PETITION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF
MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK
[CIRCUIT COURT OF LINCOLN
COUNTY, LCV 2008-9, HON. ROBERT
H. WYATT, JR., JUDGE]
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Benjamin Williams, Jr., an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of
Correction, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Lincoln County Circuit Court that was
dismissed. Petitioner timely filed a notice of appeal, and later filed a motion for an extension of time
to file the record on appeal. The circuit court granted the motion for an extension of time to file the
record, but our clerk declined to file the record tendered, on the basis that the order extending the
time to file the record was invalid. Petitioner filed a pro se motion for rule on clerk.
We did not consider the merits of petitioner’s arguments in the motion, because it was clear
on the partial record that, even if we were to grant petitioner’s motion, he could not prevail on any
appeal, and we denied the motion on that basis. Williams v. Norris, 08-993 (Ark. Nov. 20, 2008)
(per curiam). Petitioner now brings this motion for reconsideration of that denial.
Petitioner complains in his motion that he followed correct procedure in order to bring his
appeal and protests that he has been denied an opportunity for this court to address the merits of his
appeal. He contends that he presented a valid petition for writ of habeas corpus to the circuit court,
and argues that he should be allowed to present his appeal.
Despite petitioner’s claim that he presented a valid petition, the record before this court
indicated that petitioner had not presented cognizable claims, as our previous opinion noted. In
effect, this court fully addressed the merits of the appeal and there is no need for further
consideration. An appeal of the denial of postconviction relief will not be permitted to go forward
where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Lukach v. State, 369 Ark. 475, 255 S.W.3d 832
(2007) (per curiam). Had this court permitted petitioner to proceed with an appeal, the result would
have been no different. Petitioner has therefore stated no good cause to reconsider our previous
decision.
Petition denied.
-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.
