Callie v. State (Per Curiam)

Annotate this Case

Appellant Lloyd Callie was convicted of two counts of rape and sentenced to 480 months' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence. Appellant filed a motion to vacate his judgment and commitment in the circuit court, asserting that his due process rights were violated by the admission of certain evidence pursuant to Ark. R. Evid. 404(b). The circuit court correctly treated the motion as one for postconviction relief and then denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant had previously filed a petition for postconviction relief and did not demonstrate that his first petition was denied without prejudice, Appellant was not entitled to file a second petition for postconviction relief.

Download PDF

Cite as 2011 Ark. 354 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR 10-669 Opinion Delivered LLOYD JAMES CALLIE APPELLANT V. September 15, 2011 PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE S E B A S T IA N C O U N T Y C IR C U IT COURT, GREENWOOD DISTRICT [CR2001-07G], HON. J. M ICHAEL FITZHUGH, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE AFFIRMED. PER CURIAM Appellant Lloyd James Callie appeals from the circuit court s order denying his motion to vacate his order of judgment and commitment. In 2001, appellant was convicted of two counts of rape and sentenced to 480 months imprisonment. He appealed, and the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence. Callie v. State, CACR 01-1351 (Ark. App. Jan. 22, 2003) (unpublished). On March 31, 2010, appellant filed a motion to vacate his judgment and commitment in the circuit court, and the circuit court denied his motion. He now appeals that order. We affirm. In his motion to vacate, appellant asserted that his due-process rights were violated by the admission of certain evidence pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Evidence 404(b) (2001). The circuit court correctly treated the motion as one for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2005). However, the circuit court found, and a review of the record s docket sheet confirms, that appellant had previously filed a Rule 37.1 petition, which was denied by the circuit court. Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(b)(2011) does not Cite as 2011 Ark. 354 allow for a subsequent petition unless the original pleading was denied without prejudice to file a second petition, and appellant has not demonstrated that his first Rule 37.1 petition was denied without prejudice. Carter v. State, 2010 Ark. 349 (per curiam); Morgan v. State, 2009 Ark. 362 (per curiam). Because appellant was not entitled to file a second Rule 37.1 petition, we affirm the circuit court s order. Affirmed. 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.