Burks v. State (Per Curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2013 Ark. 274 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-09-609 Opinion Delivered June HUTSON BURKS PETITIONER 20, 2013 PRO SE PETITION FOR REHEARING [PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 60CR-07-598] V. STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT PETITION TREATED AS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL OF PETITION AND DENIED. PER CURIAM On May 2, 2013, we granted the State s motion to dismiss a pro se petition filed by petitioner Hutson Burks in which petitioner sought leave to proceed in the circuit court with a petition for writ of error coram nobis in his criminal case. Burks v. State, 2013 Ark. 188 (per curiam). Petitioner subsequently filed the instant petition for rehearing. Because it challenges this court s dismissal of the appeal and was timely tendered with respect to the dismissal of the appeal, it is properly treated as a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of appeal as there was no affirmance of an order or judgment in the case. See Sherman v. Norris, 2009 Ark. 470 (per curiam). In the pleading, petitioner raises essentially the same arguments for issuance of a writ of error coram nobis that were contained in the petition that this court dismissed. Those claims have already been considered and determined to not state a ground to warrant the writ. A request for rehearing or reconsideration should, pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 23(g) (2012), call attention to specific errors of law or fact that the opinion is thought to contain. Cite as 2013 Ark. 274 See MacKool v. State, 2012 Ark. 341 (per curiam); see also Fields v. State, 2013 Ark. 117 (per curiam). Petitioner has not established that there was any error of law or fact in the opinion or given any other cause for reconsideration of the decision to dismiss the petition. Petition treated as motion for reconsideration of dismissal of petition and denied. Hutson Burks, pro se petitioner. Dustin McDaniel, Att y Gen., by: Valerie Glover Fortner, Ass t Att y Gen., for respondent. 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.