Case Title: Scotty Ray Payton v. State of Arkansas

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR01-370

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 2002-01-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION PER CURIAM MARCH 7, 2002 SCOTTY RAY PAYTON APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE CR 01-370 PETITION FOR REHEARING (CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, NO. CR 96-298) PETITION DENIED On January 31, 2002, we affirmed an order of the Circuit Court of Crawford County that denied Payton's Rule 37 petition. Payton v. State, CR 01-370 (Ark. January 31, 2002). In response to our decision, appellant has filed a petition for rehearing. We find that appellant has failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact with our prior holding; thus, his petition is denied. Rule 2-3 (g) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court provides that rehearing lies only for the purpose of calling attention to specific errors of law or fact which the opinion is thought to contain. In his petition, Payton contends that we erred in failing to address his first argument on appeal because we misunderstood his argument. Payton asserts that he argued that counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve the sufficiency of the evidence for appeal. However, upon review of appellant's argument section of his brief, he only challenges the sufficiency of the evidence without reference to counsel's ineffectiveness. As we pointed out in the first opinion, appellant made a vague reference to four issues that counsel failed to preserve. Payton did not specificallymake any argument that counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve the sufficiency of the evidence. Payton asserts that further indication of our failure to understand the arguments made in his brief is found in the fact that we did not cite Thomas v. State, 322 Ark. 670, 911 S.W.2d 259 (1995), or differentiate between Thomas and the case at hand. If Payton would have presented an argument in his brief discussing Thomas, supra, instead of using that case simply as a citation, we may have been able to address his issue. However, Payton did not make this argument in his opening brief but advanced it in his reply brief. We do not consider arguments made for the first time in a reply brief. Partin v. State Bar of Arkansas, 320 Ark. 37, 894 S.W.2d 906 (1995). For his second point in this petition, Payton argues that we disregarded his second point on appeal. He contends that "total disregard of the precise argument made by Appellant is not sound policy for the writing of appellate decisions." This assertion by appellant does not allege an error of law or fact. In addition, Payton's conclusory allegation failed to demonstrate prejudice; this failure prevented appellant relief under Rule 37. See Wainwright v. State, 307 Ark. 569, 823 S.W.2d 449 (1992). Because Payton has failed to show any error of law or fact in the questioned opinion, we must deny his petition for rehearing. Petition denied.