Clemmons v. State

2013 Ark. 420 (2013) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · October 24, 2013 · No. CR-13-462

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed Timothy Mack Clemmons’s appeal from the denial of his Act 1780 habeas corpus petition. The court held that his claims—including insufficient evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, due process violations, and the failure to recover a firearm—were not cognizable under the statute, and it therefore deemed his pending motions moot.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Decision date
October 24, 2013
Docket number
CR-13-462
Procedural posture
Appellant appealed the Pulaski County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Arkansas's Act 1780 of 2001, as amended by Act 2250 of 2005. While the appeal was pending, he filed pro se motions for a stay and abeyance, copies of the lodged record, and an extension of time to file his brief.
Standard of review
An appeal from an order denying postconviction relief, including relief under Act 1780, will not be permitted to proceed when it is clear that the appellant could not prevail.
Precedential value
Published Arkansas Supreme Court opinion; precedential value is not otherwise specified in the text.
Parties
Timothy Mack Clemmons v. State of Arkansas
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

state post-conviction reliefhabeas corpusactual innocenceappellate procedureremedies

Practice areas

criminal procedurepost-conviction reliefhabeas corpusappellate procedureremedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the circuit court properly denied Clemmons's Act 1780 habeas petition when his claims did not rely on newly discovered scientific evidence proving actual innocence.
  2. Whether the appeal should proceed when it was clear that Clemmons could not prevail.
  3. Whether Clemmons's pending motions for a stay and abeyance, copies of the lodged record, and an extension of time to file his brief should be granted.

Holdings

  1. An appeal from an order denying postconviction relief, including relief under Act 1780, will not be allowed to proceed when it is clear that the appellant could not prevail.
  2. Act 1780 relief is limited to claims based on newly discovered scientific evidence proving that the convicted person is actually innocent; claims concerning failure of proof, insufficiency of the evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and due process violations are not cognizable under the Act.
  3. No evidentiary hearing was required because the record conclusively showed that Clemmons was not entitled to habeas relief.

Key quotations

An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief, including a petition under Act 1780 of 2001, will not be allowed to proceed where it is clear that an appellant could not prevail.
An Act 1780 petition is limited to issues based on newly discovered scientific evidence.

Factual background

In 2009, Timothy Mack Clemmons was convicted of multiple counts of unlawfully discharging a firearm from a vehicle after shots were fired from his vehicle at the home of his former girlfriend. He received a total sentence of 864 months' imprisonment, including a 96-month firearm enhancement. In his later Act 1780 petition, he asserted actual innocence and argued that no firearm linking him to the crime had been recovered.

Procedural history

Clemmons was convicted in 2009 of multiple counts of unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle and received an aggregate sentence of 864 months' imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions in 2010. In 2012, he filed an Act 1780 habeas petition asserting actual innocence and other claims; the circuit court denied relief. The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because the petition was plainly meritless and held the pending motions moot.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…