Case Title: Dan Chris Ivy v. State of Arkansas

Citation: 

Docket Number: cacr95-135

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-03-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
Dan Chris IVY v. STATE of Arkansas

CA CR 95-135                                       ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                Opinion delivered March 19, 1997


Appeal & error -- motion to unseal brief denied -- motion to submit Rule 37 
     petition under seal granted -- motion to strike State's response denied. -
     - The supreme court denied appellant's motion to unseal
     medical records concerning the victim in this matter; granted
     appellant permission to refer to the records in an A.R.Cr.P.
     Rule 37 petition, ordering that the records and any references
     to them not be released to anyone other than the court, the
     parties to the Rule 37 petition, and the parties' attorneys;
     and denied appellant's motion to strike the State's response.


     Motion to Unseal Brief, denied; Motion to Submit Rule 37
Petition Under Seal, granted; Motion to Strike Response, denied.
     Job Serebrov, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Vada Berger, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     Per Curiam. 
     On March 17, 1997, we issued a per curiam order concerning Dan
Chris Ivy's motion to unseal a brief, motion to submit a petition
under seal, and motion to strike the State's response.  We
erroneously referred to the motions as if they concerned a petition
to be submitted to this Court.  The following is substituted in
place of the order we handed down on March 17, 1997:
     Dan Chris Ivy was convicted of third-degree battery.  The
conviction was affirmed by the Arkansas Court of Appeals.  Certain
medical records concerning the victim were maintained under seal by
the Court of Appeals.  Mr. Ivy moves to unseal those records so
that his attorney may have access to them for the purpose of
preparing a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R.
Crim. P. 37.  As an alternative, Mr. Ivy suggests that he be
allowed access to the records but maintain their confidentiality by
submitting his Rule 37 petition under seal.
     The State has responded with an objection to unsealing the
records, but it has no objection to allowing the petition to be
submitted under seal.  Mr. Ivy has moved to strike the State's
response because it was untimely.  We decline to strike the State's
response.
     We take no position whatever on whether Mr. Ivy should have
had access to the records for his trial or appeal.  Nor do we take
any position on whether they should have been placed under seal. 
We note only that Mr. Ivy has suggested a means of accomplishing
his purpose of getting the information before the Court which will
hear his Rule 37 petition, and the State has agreed to it.  We deny
the motion to unseal the records in question.  We grant permission
to refer to the records in a Rule 37 petition and order that the
records and any references to them not be released to anyone other
than the Court, the parties to the Rule 37 petition, and the
parties' attorneys.