Title: Charles Laverne Singleton v. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Charles Laverne SINGLETON v. Larry NORRIS,
Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

CR 98-218                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                Opinion delivered April 23, 1998


Criminal procedure -- death penalty -- question not previously decided -- 
     petition for rehearing of decision to stay denied. -- The supreme
     court, distinguishing three categorically different death-
     penalty cases, rejected the State's contention that, under the
     court's recent decision to stay appellant's execution pending
     resolution of his declaratory-judgment petition, stays of
     execution would now be warranted in the earlier cases; where
     the point raised in appellant's petition for a stay had not
     been addressed or decided in this or in any analogous case,
     the supreme court concluded that the issue presented was bona
     fide and not frivolous, the proceeding in circuit court was
     competent, and the question had to be resolved before any
     execution; under those unique facts, the stay had been
     granted; respondent's petition for rehearing was denied.


     Petition for Rehearing; denied.
     Jeff Rosenzweig, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Kelly K. Hill, Deputy Att'y
Gen., and Todd L. Newton, Asst. Att'y Gen., for appellee.

     Per Curiam.
     Respondent Larry Norris petitions for a rehearing of this
courtþs decision to stay the execution of Charles Laverne Singleton
pending resolution of his petition for a declaratory judgment and
all necessary writs to enforce that judgment.  Because the
execution scheduled for March 11, 1998, was in fact stayed by this
courtþs order, the issue is now moot.  We choose, however, to
address issues of significant public interest raised in the
rehearing petition that may well reoccur in the future.  See Wilson
v. Pulaski Assþn of Classroom Teachers, 330 Ark. 298, 954 S.W.2d 221 (1997); Thomas v. Board of Correction and Community Punishment,
324 Ark. 6, 918 S.W.2d 156 (1996).
     Contrary to Norrisþs assertion, we consider this case to be
categorically different from the cases of Pickens v. Tucker, 316
Ark. 811, 875 S.W.2d 835 (1994), Fairchild v. Norris, 314 Ark. 221,
861 S.W.2d 111 (1993), and Rector v. Clinton, 308 Ark. 104,