Title: Larry Rayford v. State of Arkansas
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: CR07-651
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: November 8, 2007

1 In the reply brief filed in this court, appellant reiterated that the petition was filed pursuant to Act 1780, and was “clearly not” a petition for writ of habeas corpus “seeking relief pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. Section 16­112­101 et seq.” ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 07­651 LARRY RAYFORD Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee Opinion Delivered November 8, 2007 PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ASHLEY COUNTY, CR 93­ 18, HON. DON GLOVER, JUDGE AFFIRMED. PER CURIAM In 1994, appellant Larry Rayford was found guilty by a jury of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. This court affirmed. Rayford v. State, 326 Ark. 656, 934 S.W.2d 496 (1996). In 2002, appellant filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001, codified as Ark. Code Ann. §§16­112­201–16­112­207 (Supp. 2001). The act provides that a writ of habeas corpus can issue based upon new scientific evidence proving a person actually innocent of the offense or offenses for which he or she was convicted. Appellant’s petition sought testing of evidence for fingerprints. The trial court denied the petition and no appeal was taken. In 2007, appellant filed in the trial court an “amended” habeas corpus petition “pursuant to section 16­112­201 et seq.” 1 Therein, appellant claimed a violation of judicial canons by Judge Sam Pope. When appellant was tried for capital murder, Judge Pope was prosecuting attorney and signed 2 Act 1780 of 2001 was amended by Act 2250 of 2005 and codified as Ark. Code Ann. §§16­112­201–16­112­208 (Repl. 2006). ­2­ the felony information. Later, after Judge Pope assumed the bench, he entered an order that reduced to writing certain findings made by the preceding circuit court judge. The order concerned obtaining an extension of time to lodge the record on direct appeal in appellant’s case, and finding appellant to be indigent for appeal purposes to allow preparation of the record by the court reporter. Based upon that order, appellant claimed entitlement to a new trial, alleging that Judge Pope should not have entered an order in a case where he had been the prosecutor. The trial court denied the petition and appellant has lodged an appeal here from that order of denial. This court does not reverse a denial of postconviction relief unless the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous. Greene v. State, 356 Ark. 59, 146 S.W.3d 871 (2004). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there was evidence to support it, the appellate court after reviewing the entire evidence is left with the definite and firmconviction that a mistake has been committed. Flores v. State, 350 Ark. 198, 85 S.W.3d 896 (2002). For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the decision of the trial court. As noted above, Act 1780 involves scientific testing ofevidence introduced at trial. 2 See Ark. Code Ann. § 16­112­103(a)(1)(Repl. 2006) and sections 16­112­201–16­112­208; see also Echols v. State, 350 Ark. 42, 84 S.W.3d 424 (2002) (per curiam) (decision under prior law). A number of predicate requirements must be met under Act 1780 before a circuit court can order that testing be done under the act. See sections 16­112­201–16­112­203. The claim of judicial misconduct raised in appellant’s petition and on appeal is not within the purview of Act 1780. The circuit court did not err when it denied appellant’s petition without ­3­ holding a hearing as the petition, files, and record showed that appellant was not entitled to relief, as allowed under section 16­112­205(a). Affirmed.