Cit e as 2014 A rk . 6



## S UPREME COURT OF ARKANS AS No. CR-12-338 CLEVELAND EVANS APPELLANT V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered January 16, 2014 APPEAL FROM TH E PU LASKI COU NTY CIRCU IT COU RT [NO. CR-2008-5049] H ONORAB LE B ARRY SIMS, JU DGE AFFIRMED.

PAU L E. D AN I EL SO N, As s ociat e Ju st ice Appellant Clevelan d E vans was convict e d of prem e dit at ed and deliberat ed capit al

m urder and sent enced t o life imprisonm ent wit hout t he possibilit y of parole, and t his court affirm e d t h at convict i on and sent ence in E vans v. State , 2011 Ark. 3 3, 378 S.W.3d 82. Evans
t h en filed a pet it ion for post c onvict i on r elief pursuant t o A r k a nsas Rule o f Crim inal Procedure 37, alleging t hat his t rial at t orney was ineffect ive. A ft er an evident iary hearing, t he circuit court denied Evans’s pet it ion on January 17, 2 012. Evans now appeals from t hat denial and argues t hat t he circuit c o urt erred by (1) not perm i t t i n g h im t o am end his Rule 37 pet it ion and (2) denying his pet it ion. We affirm

. On t he sam e day t hat Evans filed his Rule 3 7 pet it ion, h e filed a m ot ion st at ing t hat he w as unable t o adequat e ly present h i s claim s wit hin Rule 37’s t en-page allot m ent and,
t h erefore, request e d t hat t he court eit her allow him t o am end his pet it ion or to file an overlengt h pet it ion. The circuit court denied his m ot ion, and Evans now argues t h at t he circuitCit e as 2014 A rk . 6

court e rred by doing so. H e specifically argues t h a t b y t h e circuit court denying him an
at t o rney and not allowing h i m t o a m e n d his pet it ion, t he vast m ajorit y of his p et it ion is irrelevant t o an argum ent that counsel was ineffect ive. We find no error i n t he circuit court ’s denial and affirm

on t his point

. First , alt hough Evans d id not develop an argum ent about not having been represent ed,
we not e t hat t h e re is no absolut e right t o appoint m ent of counsel in post convict ion or civil

m at t ers. See Smith

v. State , 2010 Ark. 365 (per c uriam ). We have held t h at if an appellant

m akes a subst ant ial showing t hat h e is e nt it led to relief in a post convict ion appeal and t hat he
cannot p roceed wit hout counsel, we will appoint counsel. See id

. H owever, i n t he inst ant case, Evans has not dem onst rat ed m erit t o his appeal and, t herefore, has not m e t his burden of est ablishing t h at he is ent i t led t o appoint m e nt of counsel. We m o v e n o w t o Evans’s com plaint regarding t he page lim it at ion. U nder Ark. R. Crim

. P. 37.1(e), p et it ions for post convict ion relief shall not exceed t e n p ages in lengt h. This
court has held t hat t h e r ule lim it ing pet it ions t o ten pages is an e nt irely reasonable rest rict i on

on pet it i oners seeking p ost convict ion relief. See S anders v. State , 352 A rk. 16, 98 S.W.3d 35 (2003) ; W

a sh ing ton v. State , 308 Ark. 322, 823 S .W.2d 900 (1992). In fact , t his court has
st at ed that due process does not require court s t o provide an unlim it ed opport unity t o present post convict ion claim s or preventa court fromest ablishing lim it s on t he number of pages in

a pet it ion. See id. W hile t his court ’s Rules of Crim inal Procedure do allow f o r t h e

am endm e nt of Rule 37 pet it ions, it is o nly wit h leave of t h e court
. See Ark. R. Crim

. P. 37.2(e). Our st andard o f review as t o t he denial of leave t o am end is abuse o f discret ion; we

2Cit e as 2014 A rk . 6

det erm ine whet h er t he circuit c ourt ’s decision w as arbit rary or groundless. See Adams v. State , 2013 Ark. 174, ___ S.W.3d ___. H ere, Evans fails t o est ablish t hat t he circuit court abused i t s discret ion i n denying t he

m ot ion to file an enlarged pet it ion. H e adm it t edly included only one paragraph in t he ent ire pet it ion t hat was rele v a n t t o t h e issue of whet her h is counsel was ineffect ive and did not include it unt il t he t went iet h p a r a g r aph. Evans failed t o “st at e in concise non-repet i t ive, fact ually specific language, t he grounds u pon which” his c laim s were based as inst ruct ed by Rule 37.1. A s a result , he squandered away t he opport unity h e had t o raise t he relevant i n e f fect ive-assist ance claim s in his pet it ion. Accordingly, t he circuit court did n ot e r r i n denying his m ot ion. For his second point on appeal, Evans sim ply argues t hat his counsel was ineffect ive for
not having sent t h e casings and project iles found at t he scene of t he crim e t o t he Arkansas Crim e Laborat ory for t est ing. H owever, t hat argum ent was n ot included in E vans’s original Rule 37 pet i t ion. Alt hough he now argues t hat he would have m ade t hat specific argum ent had he been allot ted t he addit ional p a g e s , t he fact rem ains t hat t he argum e n t was not present ed in t he pet it i on and notspecifically ruled on by t he circuit court i n it s denial. We have already det erm ined t hat the c ourt did not abuse it s discret ion by r efusing to allow him
t o file an ext ended brief. I t is axiom at ic t hat an argum ent is not preserved for appellat e review unless t he circuitcourt ruled on t hat specific o bject ion below. See Riley v. State , 2012 Ark.

3Cit e as 2014 A rk . 6

462. T h e re f

o re , t h i s c o u rt c an n o t n o w re ac h t h is issu e an d m u st af f irm

. 1 Affirm ed. B i ll Luppen , for appellant

. Dustin McDaniel , At t ’ y Gen., by: Nicana C. Sh erman , Ass’t At t’y Gen., for appellee.

1 I n ligh t o f M

ar tine z v. R y an , _

_ _U .S. _

_ _ , 132 S. Ct . 1309 (2012), w e also n o t e t hat E van s’s c laim is w it ho u t m erit f o r t h e f o llo w in g re aso n s: (1) b allist ic s t e st in g w as irre l e van t t o su p p o rt t h e d e f e n se ’s t h e o r

y o f t h e c ase t h at E van s w as n o t p re se n t an d , t he re f ore , c o u ld n o t h ave c o m m it t e d t h e c rim e; (2) give n t h e c irc u m st an c e s, t h is c o u rt c o u ld n o t h ave h e ld t h at t h e f ailu re t o ge t t h at t e st in g d o n e w as n o t w i t h in c o u n se l’s re aso nab l e , p r o fe ssio n al ju d gm e n t o r w as an e rro r so se rio u s t h at h e w as n o t f u n c t io n in g as t h e c on st it ut io n ally gu aran t e e d “c o u nse l”; an d (3) E van s f aile d t o d e m o n st rat e an y re aso nab l e p ro b ab ilit y t h at b allist i c s t e st in g w o u ld h ave yie ld e d f avo r ab le re su l t s f

or t h e d e f e n se . 4