Smith v. State (Per Curiam, with Dissenting)
Annotate this CaseAppellant pleaded guilty to multiple felony offenses. Appellant subsequently filed a timely pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that it did not comply with Rule 37.1(b). Appellant did not appeal from the order that dismissed his petition but instead filed a second petition for postconviction relief under Rule 37.1. The trial court denied relief on the ground that a second petition was not authorized under the Rule. Appellant appealed, arguing that there was good cause for his failure to file a conforming petition, and therefore, his should have been permitted to proceed with a second petition that conformed with the Rule. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not demonstrate that he was entitled to file a subsequent petition.
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.