Summary
The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed Frank Watts’s appeal and denied his petition concerning correction or modification of the record. The court held that the only appealable order was the denial of Watts’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis, and that the appeal could not challenge the habeas petition because the deemed-denied rule does not apply to habeas proceedings. The court further explained that habeas proceedings are excluded from Arkansas’s three-strikes indigency limitation, but dismissed the appeal because Watts failed to address the order at issue or adequately develop an argument.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appeal concerned a deemed denial of Watts's habeas petition or only the circuit court's order denying his petition to proceed in forma pauperis.
- Whether the circuit court's denial of in forma pauperis status was properly before the appellate court when Watts failed to address that order in his brief.
- Whether the appeal should be dismissed because Watts failed to present a developed argument supported by authority.
Holdings
- The deemed-denied provision of Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 2(a)(3) does not apply to habeas proceedings; therefore, the habeas petition was not an appealable deemed denial.
- The appeal must be dismissed because Watts failed to address the only appealable order—the denial of his petition to proceed in forma pauperis—and did not present a convincing, adequately developed argument supported by authority.
- A petitioner may proceed in forma pauperis on a habeas petition despite having accrued three strikes because applying the restriction to habeas proceedings would impermissibly limit the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus.
Key quotations
“Therefore, pursuant to Renshaw, Watts could proceed on his writ of habeas corpus petition as a pauper even though he had accrued three strikes.” (at 3)
“We will not consider an argument, even a constitutional one, if the appellant makes no convincing argument or cites no authority to support it.” (at 5)
Factual background
Watts, an incarcerated pro se litigant, submitted a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a petition to proceed in forma pauperis to the Lincoln County Circuit Court. The clerk initially failed to file-mark or assign a case number to the petitions, and the circuit court later denied pauper status under the three-strikes provision of Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-68-607. On appeal, Watts focused on the merits of his habeas petition rather than the order denying his in forma pauperis petition.
Procedural history
Watts submitted a habeas petition and an in forma pauperis petition to the Lincoln County Circuit Court, but the petitions were initially not file-marked or assigned a case number. The circuit court later denied the in forma pauperis petition under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-68-607, and Watts appealed. The Arkansas Supreme Court supplemented the record with certified copies of the petitions, held that the only appealable order was the denial of in forma pauperis status, and dismissed the appeal because Watts failed to address or develop an argument concerning that order.