Court Opinion

ID: 9389763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 14:03:01.886122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:29.461331
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 241
                   ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                       DIVISION III
                                       No. CR-22-627

 CAMERON VIRGIL                                 Opinion Delivered April   26, 2023
                               APPELLANT
                                                APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER
                                                COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
 V.                                             [NO. 23CR-20-736]

 STATE OF ARKANSAS                              HONORABLE H.G. FOSTER, JUDGE
                                 APPELLEE
                                                DISMISSED

                             CINDY GRACE THYER, Judge

       Cameron Virgil appeals the Faulkner County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition

for ineffective assistance of counsel filed pursuant to Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of

Criminal Procedure. We dismiss for lack of verification of his Rule 37 petition.

       On January 7, 2022, after a bench trial, the Faulkner County Circuit Court found

Virgil guilty of aggravated assault and kidnapping and sentenced him to consecutive

sentences of 120 months’ and 420 months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of

Correction.1 On January 20, Virgil filed a pro se letter requesting Rule 37 relief. Shortly

thereafter, Virgil obtained counsel, and counsel filed an amended petition for Rule 37 relief

       1
        Virgil filed his first notice of appeal from the sentencing order (case number CR-22-
467); however, he did not timely lodge the record on appeal, and his motion to accept the
transcript was denied.
without first obtaining leave from the circuit court. The circuit court denied the petition.

Virgil timely filed his notice of appeal.

       Virgil’s appeal must be dismissed for lack of verification. Rule 37.1(c) and (d) provide

the following:

              The petition shall be accompanied by the petitioner’s affidavit, sworn to before
       a notary or other officer authorized by law to administer oaths, in substantially the
       following form:

                                              AFFIDAVIT

                 The petitioner states under oath that (he) (she) has read the foregoing petition
                 for postconviction relief and that the facts stated in the petition are true,
                 correct, and complete to the best of petitioner’s knowledge and belief.
                 __________
                 Petitioner’s signature
                 Subscribed and sworn to before me the undersigned officer this ___ day of
                 __________, 20___.
                 __________
                 Notary or other officer

       (d) The circuit clerk shall not accept for filing any petition that fails to comply with
       subsection (c) of this rule. The circuit court or any appellate court shall dismiss any
       petition that fails to comply with subsection (c) of this rule.

       Neither Virgil’s pro se petition for Rule 37 relief nor the amended petition for relief

under Rule 37 contains the above affidavit or any semblance of one, and neither is notarized.

Likewise, Virgil’s counsel’s entry of appearance and motion for transcript for Rule 37

proceedings does not contain the above affidavit in substantial form, though it does contain

this unnotarized “VERIFICATION” clause:

                                            VERIFICATION

                                                 2
       I, Cameron Virgil, do hereby swear that the statement and matters contained herein
       are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and only for the purposes of my Rule
       37 petition.

       Virgil’s petitions for Rule 37 relief are fundamentally flawed because they do not

contain the above affidavit in substantial form, and they are not notarized. The verification

requirement for a postconviction-relief petition is of substantive importance to prevent

perjury. See Randle v. State, 2016 Ark. 228, 493 S.W.3d 309; Ransom v. State, 2009 Ark. 215

(per curiam); Carey v. State, 268 Ark. 332, 596 S.W.2d 688 (1980). We dismiss the appeal

without reaching the merits.

       Dismissed.

       VIRDEN and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

       Eugene Clifford, for appellant.

       Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Walker K. Hawkins, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

                                              3