Scott v. State

372 Ark. 587 (Ark. 2008) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · March 6, 2008 · No. CR 08-48

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas dismissed Ricky Lee Scott’s appeal from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief and motion for forensic testing under Act 1780 of 2001. The court held that the petition, filed more than nine years after conviction, was presumptively untimely and that Scott failed to establish any statutory basis to rebut that presumption. His related motions for counsel, record access, and additional briefing time were deemed moot.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Decision date
March 6, 2008
Docket number
CR 08-48
Procedural posture
Scott appealed pro se from the trial court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and motion for forensic testing under Act 1780 of 2001.
Standard of review
An appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief will not proceed when it is clear that the appellant cannot prevail.
Precedential value
published opinion
Parties
Ricky Lee Scott v. State of Arkansas
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

state post-conviction reliefhabeas corpusappellate procedurestatutory interpretationactual innocence

Practice areas

state post-conviction reliefcriminal procedureappellate procedureevidencestatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Scott's Act 1780 petition and motion for testing were timely despite being filed more than thirty-six months after his conviction.
  2. Whether Scott rebutted the statutory presumption against timeliness by showing incompetence, newly discovered evidence, a substantially more probative new testing method, manifest injustice, or other good cause.
  3. Whether the appeal and Scott's related motions could proceed when he could not prevail on the untimely petition.

Holdings

  1. A motion for relief under Act 1780 filed more than thirty-six months after conviction is presumed untimely, and the petitioner must establish in the petition one of the statutory grounds rebutting that presumption.
  2. Scott did not rebut the presumption against timeliness because the witness statements, comparison samples, jersey, bullet casing, and requested testing were available at trial or did not constitute a substantially more probative method of testing his innocence.
  3. An appeal from denial of post-conviction relief will not be permitted to proceed when it is clear that the appellant cannot prevail.

Key quotations

We construe section 16-112-202(10)(B) to require a showing that the new testing is more probative of a petitioner's innocence, rather than his guilt. (279 S.W.3d at 69)
Because appellant did not timely file a petition and motion for testing, it is clear that the trial court did not err in dismissing the petition and motion, and we dismiss the appeal. (279 S.W.3d at 69)

Factual background

Scott was convicted of first-degree murder in 1998 and received a life sentence. More than nine years later, he sought testing of witness statements, a jersey for gunpowder residue, and a .380 bullet casing for fingerprints, ballistics, and DNA. The materials and requested testing were available, or could have been pursued, at the time of trial, and Scott did not establish that any proposed new testing was substantially more probative of his innocence.

Procedural history

A jury convicted Scott of first-degree murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment in 1998, and the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the judgment in 1999. In 2007, Scott filed an Act 1780 habeas petition and motion for testing. The trial court denied both, and the Supreme Court of Arkansas dismissed the appeal because the petition was untimely; related motions for appointed counsel, record access, and an extension of time were moot.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…