Case Title: Willie Munn v. State of Arkansas

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR05-985

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 2005-10-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 05-985 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION WILLIE MUNN Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent Opinion Delivered October 6, 2005 PRO SE PETITION FOR REVIEW [CACR 2001-34-2] [CIRCUIT COURT OF HEMPSTEAD COUNTY, HON. DUNCAN CULPEPPER, JUDGE] PETITION DENIED PER CURIAM Willie Munn was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia for which a term of four years' imprisonment was imposed on each conviction to be served consecutively. The court of appeals affirmed. Munn v. State, CACR 02-1246 (Ark. App. August 31, 2005). Appellant filed a pro se petition for rehearing that was denied. Munn v. State, CACR 02-1246 (Ark. App. September 28, 2005) (per curiam order). Now before us is appellant's pro se petition for review, contending that the court of appeals erred in affirming the judgment and that he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel on appeal. The issues contained in the petition are issues which appellant raised in the pro se points for reversal that he filed on direct appeal. We find no ground pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 2-4(c) to grant the petition for review. The rule provides that review will not be granted without a showing by the petitioner that the decision of the court of appeals is in conflict with a prior holding of a published opinion of either this court or the court of appeals or that the court otherwise erred with respect to one of the grounds enumerated in Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(b). An assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel, whether it pertains to trial or appellate counsel, is not a grounds included in our rule, and none of the other claims made by petitioner constitutes the requisite showing under the rule. Petition denied.