Title: Randy L. Anderson v. State of Arkansas

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 05-504 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION RANDY L. ANDERSON Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee Opinion Delivered January 12, 2006 PRO SE MOTION TO COMPEL COUNSEL TO FILE SUBSTITUTED BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF CHICOT COUNTY, CR 2000-79-4, HON. SAM POPE, JUDGE] MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED PER CURIAM Randy L. Anderson was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. We reversed and remanded for resentencing. Anderson v. State, 353 Ark. 384, 108 S.W.3d 592 (2003). In the resentencing proceeding, a sentence of life imprisonment without parole was imposed. Subsequently, Anderson filed in the trial court a timely pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, challenging the judgment and sentence on the ground that he had not been afforded effective assistance of counsel in the trial court. He later retained counsel who was permitted by the court to file an amended Rule 37.1 petition. The court denied the relief sought, and Anderson has lodged an appeal from that order. Both counsel for appellant and the State have filed a brief-in-chief. Now before us is a pro se motion filed by appellant asking that his attorney on appeal be required to file a substituted brief. Appellant argues in the motion that his attorney has denied him due process of law by raising only one issue that was raised in the amended petition on appeal and ignoring the fourteen issues that he raised in the original pro se Rule 37.1 petition. He further argues that he has been denied effective assistance of counsel by virtue of the omission of the fourteen issues from the brief, but there is no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in a postconviction proceeding. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 482 U.S. 551 (1987); see also Dyer v. State, 258 Ark. 494, 527 S.W.2d 622 (1975). In addition to the fourteen issues, appellant also asks that counsel be directed to include in the substituted brief the one issue raised by counsel in the brief. Appellant further asks that counsel be required to "send [him] a verified petition form to sign." It appears that the reference to a verified petition may arise from the fact that the amended Rule 37.1 petition filed by counsel in the trial court was not verified as required by Rule 37.1(d). If this is a request to now be allowed to verify the petition filed below, an appellant may not cure on appeal a defect in a petition filed in a trial court. The motion to compel counsel to file a substituted brief is denied. Appellant does not make any claim that any of the fourteen issues omitted by counsel from the brief has merit. He states only that he does not wish to lose the issues through a procedural default. As appellant has not demonstrated that counsel has omitted a meritorious issue from the brief, there is no basis to compel counsel to file a substituted brief. Turning to the brief filed by counsel in this appeal, we agree with the State's argument in its brief that there is no ground stated in the brief to overturn the court's order denying relief pursuant to Rule 37.1. The sole issue raised by counsel is one raised in the amended Rule 37.1 petition which was not a verified petition. The verification requirement for a petition for postconviction relief is of substantive importance to prevent perjury. Carey v. State, 268 Ark. 332, 596 S.W.2d 688 (1980). To serve this purpose, a petitioner must execute the verification, and if the petitioner is represented by counsel, counsel may not sign and verify the petition for him. Boyle v. State, --- Ark. ----, ---S.W.3d ---- (May 5, 2005) (per curiam ). It may be assumed that counsel made a studied professional judgment on what issues raised below were meritorious and should be raised on appeal. See Dudley v. State, 285 Ark. 160, 163, 685 S.W.2d 170, 172 (1985) (per curiam); See Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 103 (1983). The fact that counsel did not raise any of the fourteen allegations raised in the original pro se petition is not in itself a showing that any of the fourteen issues was well founded. The brief submitted by counsel in this appeal is not deficient merely because counsel failed to agree with appellant on the issues to raise on appeal. See Dokes v. State, 299 Ark. 178, 772 S.W.2d 583 (1986) (per curiam). Here, appellant could not prevail on appeal because the only issue alleged to be sufficient to overturn the order was raised in an invalid petition. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. This court has consistently held that an appeal of the denial of postconviction relief will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996) (per curiam); Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994) (per curiam); Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 376 (1994) (per curiam); see Pardue v. State, 338 Ark. 606, 999 S.W.2d 198 (1999) (per curiam). Motion denied; appeal dismissed.