Perry v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 09-317
Opinion Delivered
FRANCES RENEE PERRY
Appellant
v.
May 28, 2009
PRO SE MOTIONS FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, FOR
EXTENSION OF BRIEF TIME AND
FOR COPY OF RECORD AT PUBLIC
EXPENSE [CIRCUIT COURT OF
PULASKI COUNTY, CR 2003-993,
HON. CHRIS PIAZZA, JUDGE]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS
MOOT.
PER CURIAM
In 2006, appellant Frances Renee Perry was charged with violating the Arkansas Hot Check
Law, and probation was revoked in three prior violation cases. Appellant was sentenced to thirty-six
months’ imprisonment. A corrected judgment and commitment order was entered on April 20, 2006,
and no appeal was taken.
In 2009, appellant filed in the trial court a motion to correct a clerical mistake in the
commitment order. Therein, she maintained that the 2006 corrected judgment should have stated
that appellant entered a plea of not guilty rather than guilty. A circuit court can enter an order nunc
pro tunc at any time to correct clerical errors in a judgment or order. A circuit court’s power to
correct mistakes or errors is to make “the record speak the truth, but not to make it speak what it did
not speak but ought to have spoken.” Lord v. Mazzanti, 339 Ark. 25, 29, 2 S.W.3d 76, 79 (1999).
This power embodies the common law rule of nunc pro tunc orders, which is applicable in both civil
and criminal cases. See State v. Rowe, 374 Ark. 19, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2008).
The trial court denied the motion, and appellant, proceeding pro se, has lodged an appeal here
from the order. Now before us are appellant’s pro se motions for appointment of counsel, for an
extension of time to file her brief-in-chief and for a copy of the entire record in this matter to be
provided to her at public expense. As appellant could not be successful on appeal, the appeal is
dismissed and the motions are moot.
An appeal from an order that denied a petition for
postconviction relief will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not
prevail. Womack v. State, 368 Ark. 341, 245 S.W.3d 154 (2006) (per curiam).
Here, the 2006 corrected judgment noted that appellant entered a plea of guilty directly to the
court and there is no basis to find that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to correct
that notation. The trial court attached appellant’s plea statement to the order of denial. The plea
statement, signed by appellant, states without equivocation that she was guilty in the revocation
proceedings. She also stated therein that she freely, knowingly and voluntarily waived her rights and
understood the punishment range for the charges filed against her. Appellant provided no factual
basis to support her contention that she did not enter a guilty plea in 2006.
Appeal dismissed; motions 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.
