Summary
The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed Richard Leon Strong’s appeal from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Act 1780 of 2001. The court held that Strong failed to satisfy the statutory requirement that his identity had been at issue and that his other claims were not cognizable under Act 1780; his motions for access to the record and appointment of counsel were therefore moot.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Strong satisfied the predicate requirement under Arkansas Act 1780 that his identity had been at issue during the investigation or prosecution so as to obtain DNA or other scientific testing.
- Whether Strong's request for comparison of unspecified fibers at the crime scene satisfied the requirements of Act 1780.
- Whether claims of prosecutorial misconduct, due process and equal protection violations, trial-court abuse of discretion, and insufficiency of the evidence were cognizable under Act 1780.
- Whether the appeal and motions for access to the record and appointment of counsel should proceed.
Holdings
- A petitioner cannot obtain scientific testing under Act 1780 unless the petition satisfies the statutory predicate that the petitioner's identity was at issue during the investigation or prosecution. Because the victim knew and specifically identified Strong as the attacker, Strong's identity was not at issue.
- A request for scientific comparison of unspecified fibers is subject to the same Act 1780 predicate requirements as a request for DNA testing, and Strong's failure to show that his identity was at issue defeated the request.
- Claims of prosecutorial misconduct, due process and equal protection violations, trial-court abuse of discretion, and insufficiency of the evidence are not cognizable under Act 1780, which is limited to issues involving scientific testing.
Key quotations
“An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief, including an appeal from an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus based on new scientific evidence, will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail.” (372 S.W.3d at 759)
“In such a case, the defendant’s identity is not “at issue” for purposes of a petition under Act 1780 because the defendant was the only possible rapist, and the question was whether he committed the crime.” (372 S.W.3d at 760)
“An Act 1780 petition is limited to issues of scientific testing.” (372 S.W.3d at 761)
Factual background
Strong was convicted of raping K.M., a fifteen-year-old who had lived with Strong and his wife since infancy and considered them her parents. K.M. identified Strong as the perpetrator, and the State presented DNA evidence linking Strong's semen to a sock and the victim's underwear. Strong sought additional DNA testing of the sock and bed sheet and scientific comparison of fibers, but the court concluded that his identity had not been at issue because the alleged attacker was known to the victim.
Procedural history
Strong was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape and received consecutive life sentences. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal. The circuit court denied his Act 1780 petition, and Strong appealed; while the appeal was pending, he moved for access to the record and appointment of counsel. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because the petition's allegations showed that Strong could not prevail and held the motions moot.