Mills v. State
| Decision Date | 14 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-19-750,CV-19-750 |
| Citation | 2020 Ark. 193,600 S.W.3d 539 |
| Parties | Johnny Lee MILLS, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Johnny Lee Mills, pro se appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Pamela Rumpz, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
Appellant Johnny Lee Mills appeals from the denial of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16-112-201 to -208 (Repl. 2016) seeking scientific testing of evidence from his criminal case. Because Mills failed to establish the timeliness of the petition or its merit, we affirm the trial court's order.
In 1994, a jury found Mills guilty of capital murder with the underlying offenses of kidnapping and rape, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. We affirmed. Mills v. State , 322 Ark. 647, 910 S.W.2d 682 (1995). In 2019, Mills filed the petition for scientific testing of evidence in the trial court.1
Mills was found guilty of the murder of Carrie Galbreath. Galbreath's sister testified at trial that she was with Galbreath until 6:50 p.m. on November 28, 1992, and that she loaned Galbreath her car at that time. Brenda Whited testified that on that same evening between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m., she and her husband, Randal Whited, were at a service station when they saw a white female struggling with a black male inside a car. Brenda heard the woman screaming and pleading for help and shouting that the man was going to shoot her, and then she heard gunshots. With Brenda and Randal watching, the man pushed the woman down toward the floorboard of the car and drove to where Brenda was parked and said something Brenda could not hear. As the car drove away, Randal took down the license-plate number, which later proved to be registered to Galbreath's sister. At approximately 9:40 p.m., a police officer found the car near Walnut Ridge with Galbreath's body inside. She had been shot six times at close range. Her underwear and pantyhose, found on the floor of the car, had a bullet hole in them. Both Brenda and Randal identified Mills in a photographic lineup and at trial as the man they had seen driving the car. The bullets that killed the victim were from a gun owned by Mills. DNA testing on semen taking from the victim's mouth established to a definite probability that the semen had come from Mills. When confronted with the DNA evidence, Mills admitted that he had had sex with the victim but contended that it was consensual. He asserted that a man named Larry White had used Mills's gun to shoot the victim. Two persons who were incarcerated with Mills testified that they had heard Mills talk about killing a girl in Walnut Ridge.
As stated, Mills filed his petition in the trial court for scientific testing pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16-112-201 to -208. The statutes are the codification of Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas, as amended by Act 2250 of 2005. The Act provides that a writ of habeas corpus may be issued on the discovery of new scientific evidence proving a person actually innocent of the offense for which he or she was convicted. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201 ; Marshall v. State , 2017 Ark. 208, 521 S.W.3d 456. A trial court can order testing under the Act when the proposed testing of the specific evidence may produce new material evidence that would support the theory of defense and raise a reasonable probability that the petitioner did not commit the offense. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-202(8)(B) ; Pankau v. State , 2013 Ark. 162, 2013 WL 1694909.
When the scientific evidence was available at trial, the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, must be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact-finder would find the petitioner guilty of the underlying offense. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201(a) ; Rayfield v. State , 2020 Ark. 40, 592 S.W.3d 237. It is clearly essential to every case that the defendant be shown as the one who committed the offense. See Standridge v. State , 357 Ark. 105, 161 S.W.3d 815 (2004). That connection can be inferred from all the facts and circumstances of the case. Id. Act 1780 permits summary disposition of a petition if it conclusively shows that the petitioner is entitled to no relief. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-205(a) ; Gipson v. State , 2019 Ark. 310, 586 S.W.3d 603.
We do not reverse a trial court's decision to deny a petition under Act 1780 unless it is clearly erroneous. Rayfield , 2020 Ark. 40, 592 S.W.3d 237. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id.
Mills's first argument for reversal of the trial court's order is that the court failed to make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law on his claims for the writ. The trial court found that Mills had failed in his petition to establish its merit. Considering the allegations raised in the petition and the evidence adduced at trial, we cannot say that the trial court's findings were insufficient or that it erred in concluding that the petition lacked merit.
Postconviction scientific testing is authorized only under specified conditions. See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-201 to -203. The petitioner bears the burden of establishing that each condition is satisfied. McClinton v. State , 2017 Ark. 360, 533 S.W.3d 578. Failure to meet any one condition precludes scientific testing as a matter of law. Johnson v. State , 2019 Ark. 391, 591 S.W.3d 265. The conditions to be satisfied for relief under the Act for DNA testing require, among other things, that the DNA testing be available and that that the petitioner identify a theory of defense that would establish his or her actual innocence. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-202(6)(B). The petitioner must also show that the proposed testing may produce new material evidence that would support the petitioner's theory and raise a reasonable probability that he or she did not commit the offense. See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-202(8). That is, Act 1780 does not permit testing of evidence on the basis of a mere assertion of innocence or a theoretical possibility that additional testing might alter the outcome of a trial. Rayfield , 2020 Ark. 40, 592 S.W.3d 237 ; see also Martin v. State , 2018 Ark. 176, 545 S.W.3d 763. Testing is authorized only if it can provide materially relevant evidence that will significantly advance the petitioner's claim of innocence in light of all evidence presented to the jury. McClinton , 2017 Ark. 360, 533 S.W.3d 578. Here, Mills posited that additional testing might show that Larry White is the man who shot the victim, but he did not raise a reasonable probability that the additional testing he describes would support the allegation.
Mills alleged that the writ should be granted because there was now a more definitive method available for the collection and testing of DNA contained in "epidural skin cells" that might show evidence of contact between the victim and Larry White. He further contended that there were advances in fingerprint, palm-print, and latent-print identification that might identify the person or persons who left an unidentified palm print and fingerprints on the car in which the victim was found. Mills did not meet his burden of explaining how those methods would be substantially more probative than the testing conducted prior to his trial or that the identification of some other person who left the palm print and fingerprints would support his claim of innocence. Essentially, Mills asserted that he is innocent and argued in conclusory statements that a more thorough examination of the evidence would discredit the State's evidence of his guilt.2 His mere listing of tests that could be done, however, does not state a ground for the writ because he provided no substantiation in his petition to establish that those tests would produce material evidence that would raise a reasonable probability that he did not commit the offense. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-202(8)(B).
The evidence presented to the jury must also be considered when deciding whether testing or retesting of any evidence would provide materially relevant evidence that would significantly advance the petitioner's claim of innocence. McClinton , 2017 Ark. 360, 533 S.W.3d 578. We concluded on direct appeal that there was substantial evidence of Mills's guilt to support the jury's verdict of capital murder. Mills , 322 Ark. at 656, 910 S.W.2d at 687. His allegations, unsupported by proof of new testing methods, do not demonstrate that more DNA or fingerprint testing of the evidence adduced at trial would so much as cast doubt on his guilt. Mills's claims amounted to baseless assertions that additional testing might support his allegation that he is innocent if evidence already tested at trial were retested. He did not establish by clear and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Makkali v. State
...would raise a reasonable probability that the petitioner did not commit the offense. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-202(8) ; Mills v. State , 2020 Ark. 193, 600 S.W.3d 539. Finally, a number of other predicate requirements must be met before a court can order testing under the Act. McArty v. State......