Title: Willie Houston v. State of Arkansas
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: CR07-800
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: November 1, 2007

1 The first two petitions were filed pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001, codified at Ark. Code ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 07­800 WILLIE HOUSTON Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee Opinion Delivered November 1, 2007 PRO SE MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF, FOR COPY OF NOTICE OF APPEAL, AND FOR DUPLICATION AT PUBLIC EXPENSE [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR 88­474, HON. JOHN W. LANGSTON, JUDGE] APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS MOOT. PER CURIAM In 1988, appellant Willie Houston was found guilty by a jury of murder in the first degree and sentenced as a habitual offender to ninety­nine years’ imprisonment. This court affirmed the judgment. Houston v. State, 299 Ark. 7, 771 S.W.2d 16 (1989). Subsequently, appellant filed in the trial court a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court denied the petition and we affirmed. Houston v. State, CR 88­194 (Ark. Dec. 10, 1990) (per curiam). Then, appellant filed in the trial court two pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001. We affirmed denial of both petitions. Houston v. State, CR 04­552 (Ark. June 9, 2005) (per curiam); Houston v. State, CR 06­45 (Ark. May 4, 2006) (per curiam). In 2007, appellant filed in the trial court a third pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001, seeking discharge of the conviction, or a new trial. 1 The trial court Ann. § 16­112­201–207 (Supp. 2003). The instant petition was filed pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001, as amended by Act 2250 of 2005 and codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§16­112­201–208 (Repl. 2006). However, Act 2250 did not amend the relevant statute, section 16­112­205(d). ­2­ denied the petition, and appellant has lodged an appeal in this court from that order. Now before us are appellant’s motions for extension oftime to file appellant’s brief, for copyofnotice ofappealfiled in the trial court, and for duplication of appellant’s brief at public expense. We need not consider the motions as it is apparent that appellant could not prevail in this appeal if it were permitted to go forward. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and hold the motions moot. This court has consistently held that an appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief, or other civil remedy, will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. See Pardue v. State, 338 Ark. 606, 999 S.W.2d 198 (1999) (per curiam); Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996) (per curiam). Here, the trial court dismissed appellant’s Act 1780 petition pursuant to section 16­112­ 205(d), which states: The court may summarily deny a second or successive petition for similar relief on behalf of the same petitioner and maysummarilydenya petition ifthe issues raised in it have previously been decided by the Arkansas Court of Appeals or the Arkansas Supreme Court in the same case. In the previous petition filed under the act, appellant sought testing of bullet fragments and argued that the tests would prove his innocence. Likewise, in the instant petition, appellant sought testing of these same bullet fragments as a basis for his innocence. As appellant has previously raised the precise issues that were being argued in the instant petition, the trial court did not err in denying another petition for similar relief. Appellant also argued in this petition that the trial court erred in allowing into evidence the bullet fragments taken from appellant’s leg during surgery, and that there was insufficient evidence ­3­ to support his conviction. Appellant raised the identical legal issues in his direct appeal, although based on slightly different factual arguments. These arguments also present a basis for summary denial of the Act 1780 petition. Moreover, claims pertaining to the admissibility of evidence are not within the purview of a proceeding under the statute. Appeal dismissed; motions moot.