Sparks v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 08-550
Opinion Delivered
STEVEN SPARKS
Appellant
June 25, 2009
PRO SE PETITION FOR REHEARING
[CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY, CR 2004-323, HON.
WILLIAM A. STOREY, JUDGE]
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
After appellant Steven Sparks was convicted of three counts of rape and three counts of
terroristic threatening, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Sparks v. State, CACR 05-600 (Ark.
App. Jun. 27, 2007). Through counsel, appellant filed in the trial court a petition for postconviction
relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 that was denied. Appellant, still represented
by counsel, lodged in this court an appeal of the order denying postconviction relief and we affirmed.
Sparks v. State, CR 08-550 (Ark. May 7, 2009) (per curiam). Appellant has now filed a pro se
petition for rehearing under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 2-3.
This court will not permit an appellant to compete with his attorney to be heard in an appeal.
Brewer v. State, 371 Ark. 532, 268 S.W.3d 332 (2007) (per curiam). Here, appellant is represented
by counsel on appeal and may not elect to file a pro se petition for rehearing.
Even were we to consider the merits of appellant’s pro se petition for rehearing, he does not
provide a basis under Rule 2-3 to grant rehearing. A petition for rehearing should be used to call
attention to specific errors of law or fact which the opinion is thought to contain and not to repeat
arguments already considered and rejected by this court. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 2-3(g). The petition must
cite to facts the appellant contends were overlooked and provide references to the abstract or
addendum. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 2-3(h). Here, appellant points to no facts that were overlooked or errors
of law in the opinion.
Appellant appears to assert that this court overlooked admonishments by the trial court and
other portions of the trial transcript that demonstrated prejudice concerning his argument regarding
restraints because he was not able to effectively communicate with his attorney. He contends that
trial counsel committed perjury at the Rule 37.1 hearing, that he is actually innocent of the crimes,
and that his trial was fundamentally unfair. None of these allegations question the bases upon which
our previous decision was founded.
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.
