Opinion ID: 1634748
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Violation of Federal Due Process

Text: Appellant first argues that the application of Rule 5-2(d) preventing him from relying on unpublished opinions violates his right to due process of law by depriving him of access to available law to support his arguments on appeal. According to Appellant, the need to rely on unpublished opinions is particularly significant in a case such as his, because he is attempting to rely on these opinions to support his argument that there was insufficient evidence submitted at trial to support the charges against him. According to Appellant, challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are clearly fact intensive because the law governing substantial evidence is understood best when applied to the facts in an individual case. Appellant claims that in his case there is no binding precedent that he can rely on in support of his argument; thus, he must couch his sufficiency argument in terms of differentiating his case from prior cases where the evidence was held sufficient. According to Appellant, this line of argument is necessary in order to avoid summary dismissal on the basis that his arguments are not supported by authority. Appellant then asserts that his right to be free from a conviction not supported by sufficient evidence compels the conclusion that he be allowed to rely on unpublished opinions to establish why there was insufficient evidence in his case. We disagree. The history of Rule 5-2 demonstrates that the proscription against relying on unpublished opinions first appeared in 1974. Originally codified as Ark. Sup.Ct. R. 21, the rule applied only to opinions of this court, as there was no intermediate appellate court in existence at that time. In a per curiam opinion addressing the issue, this court stated that Rule 21 was being amended to eliminate the publication of opinions that had no precedential value. This court then set forth the standards for publication, stating: An opinion of this court shall not be designated for publication unless: (a) The opinion establishes a new rule of law or alters, modifies, or clarifies an existing rule; or (b) The opinion involves a legal or factual issue of continuing public interest; or (c) The opinion criticizes existing law; or (d) The opinion resolves a real or apparent conflict of authority; or (e) The opinion will serve as a useful reference, such as one reviewing case law or legislative history. In Re: Opinions, Standards For PublicationCopies Available, 257 Ark. 1065 (1974) (per curiam). This court went on to state that those opinions not designated for publication could not be cited, quoted, or referred to by any court or in any argument, brief, or other materials presented to any court[.] Id. at 1066. Following the creation of the court of appeals, Rule 21 was again amended in 1979. In another per curiam opinion, this court stated that all of its signed opinions would be designated for publication, but then set forth criteria allowing only certain opinions of the court of appeals that resolve novel or unusual questions to be published. In Re: Changes in Supreme Court Rules, 265 Ark. 972, 973 (1979) (per curiam). The proscription against citing to unpublished opinions remained the same. The rationale underlying the prohibition against citing to unpublished opinions was discussed by the court of appeals in Aaron v. Everett, 6 Ark.App. 424, 644 S.W.2d 301 (1982). There, the court stated: An opinion which qualifies as one not designated for publication is written primarily for the parties and their attorneys. These interested parties already are knowledgeable of the facts of their case. For that reason, such nonpublished opinions often do not contain a litany or rehash of those matters which underly the legal issue(s) decided by this Court. Once again, we state that nonpublished opinions will not be considered as authority and should not be cited to this court. Id. at 426, 644 S.W.2d at 302. See also Yockey v. Yockey, 24 Ark.App. 169, 750 S.W.2d 420 (1988). The Court of Appeal of Louisiana similarly discussed the reasons behind no-citation rules, stating: The reason for such rules is that citation or reliance on unpublished opinions by counsel or by courts defeats the entire purpose for which unpublished opinions are allowedto ease the burden on judges by allowing them to decide cases involving well settled principles of law without having to spend the extensive time and effort that is required in deciding cases involving unsettled principles of law and writing full-fledged, ... opinions. L.M. v. J.P.M., 714 So.2d 809, 811 (La.Ct. App.1998) (citing George Rose Smith, The Selective Publication of Opinions: One Court's Experience, 32 ARK. L.REV. 26 (1978)). Here, Appellant states that there are five decisions that he relies on in his brief in support of his arguments challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Those decisions include: Bolton v. State, 2001 WL 577062 (Ark.App.); Dodson v. State, 2001 WL 615330 (Ark.App.); Porter v. State, 2001 WL 56444 (Ark.App.); Strom v. State, 2001 WL 167822 (Ark.App.); and Zajac v. State, 1999 WL 436283 (Ark. App.). According to Appellant, these cases are either the only known decisions demonstrating the argument that he is raising, or are the most appropriate opinions available to support the proposition advanced. Appellant, however, fails to cite to any cases that stand for the proposition that due process requires that Appellant be able to cite to unpublished opinions. Instead, he relies on the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Fiore v. White, 531 U.S. 225, 121 S.Ct. 712, 148 L.Ed.2d 629 (2001), and Fiore v. White, 528 U.S. 23, 120 S.Ct. 469, 145 L.Ed.2d 353 (1999). Appellant opines that the litigation in Fiore demonstrates that federal due process guarantees require a minimum level of procedural fairness in the operation of state appellate review systems. Fiore involved a petitioner seeking federal habeas relief on the ground that his conviction under Pennsylvania law was based on an inconsistent application of state law. The petitioner's argument was based on the fact that while one appellate panel rejected his argument challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, another appellate panel agreed with his co-defendant that his conviction was not supported by substantial evidence. The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioner, holding that his conviction violated due process. Fiore, however, is inapposite to the present case. While we agree that an appellant is entitled to fundamental fairness in appellate proceedings, we do not agree with Appellant's unsupported assertion that due process requires that he be entitled to rely on unpublished opinions. We believe it is important to note that while Appellant challenges the constitutionality of Rule 5-2(d), he does not argue that the rule should be abolished. Likewise, he does not argue that there are cases representing binding precedent that he should be allowed to rely on; rather, he simply wants to rely on certain opinions as persuasive authority. Specifically, he wants to rely on the factual circumstances of those opinions to demonstrate how the evidence was insufficient in his case. While Appellant may prefer those cases that are not published, there is nothing to indicate that Appellant is impaired in seeking appellate relief by not being able to rely on those cases. There are ample published opinions setting forth the test for sufficiency of the evidence, as well as its application. In reviewing a sufficiency issue, the reviewing court is charged with viewing the evidence in the particular case on appeal. See, e.g., Stone v. State, 348 Ark. 661, 74 S.W.3d 591 (2002); Williams v. State, 346 Ark. 304, 57 S.W.3d 706 (2001); Wilson v. State, 332 Ark. 7, 962 S.W.2d 805 (1998). This issue was discussed by Justice George Rose Smith, who stated: The court, in adopting its selective-publication rule, sought to achieve two goalsa reduction in the volume of published opinions and a reduction in the amount of time devoted to opinion writing. The justification for the first goal lies simply in the undeniable truth that many appellate court opinions are of no precedential value. Of course, like snowflakes, no two cases are exactly alike. But, for the purpose of selective publication, the question is whether the factual differences between one case and another are of precedential value. For instance, it is a familiar rule that out-of-court declarations of an alleged agent are not admissible to prove the agency. Here it is the rule of law, not the differences in the fact situation, that is important. 32 ARK. L.REV. 26, 28 (emphasis added). Likewise, the evidence used to support a conviction in one manufacture case is of no moment in this case; thus, even if Appellant were allowed to cite to unpublished opinions, there is no requirement that this court agree with Appellant's assessment that a particular case constitutes persuasive authority. See Webb v. State, 318 Ark. 581, 886 S.W.2d 624 (1994). See also Heathscott v. Raff, 334 Ark. 249, 973 S.W.2d 799 (1988). Accordingly, Appellant's argument on this point fails.