Court Opinion

ID: 9691566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:40:22.854463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:22.785374
License: Public Domain

R OBERT L. Brown, Justice. I concur with the majority opinion in every respect save one. The appellant raised four issues in his Rule 37.5 petition: (1) the victim-impact statute is unconstitutional; (2) the cumulative, effect of the victim-impact statements violated the appellant’s due process rights; (3) the appellant’s due process rights were violated when the trial court refused two proffered instructions; and (4) appellant’s constitutional rights were violated by our affirmance of his death sentence. All of these issues were resolved by this court in the direct appeal of the appellant’s judgment of conviction. The trial court said as much in its order: 8. (D) That the issues pertaining to the jurisdiction of the court, the victim-impact evidence, and the refusal of this Court to give the instructions requested by defendant have been determined by the Arkansas Supreme Court in their reviews of the convictions in these cases, which have all been affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court[.] I disagree with the majority’s holding that the trial court’s conclusion on this point was not sufficiently specific. The trial court said in effect that these issues are not cognizable in a Rule 37 proceeding because they were decided on direct appeal. Accordingly, I would not remand these issues for additional conclusions. Imber, J„ joins.