Rowbottom v. State, 98-005

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Writing for the Court: Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Palmer, Beverly W. Cutler; PER CURIAM; Cutler
• Citation: 13 S.W.3d 904
• Parties: Bruce Lee ROWBOTTOM v. STATE of Arkansas CR 98-005 ___ S.W.3d ___ Opinion delivered
• Decision Date: 13 April 2000
• Docket Number: 98-005

Bruce Lee ROWBOTTOM
v.
STATE of Arkansas

CR 98-005 ___ S.W.3d ___

Opinion delivered April 13, 2000

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Appeal from Benton Circuit Court; David S. Clinger, Judge; affirmed.

1. Criminal procedure -- Ark. R. Crim. P. 37 -- amendment of petition & expanded page limits. -- The Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure allow for the amendment of Rule 37 petitions but only with leave of the court; limiting Rule 37 petitions to ten pages in length is an entirely reasonable restriction on petitioners for post-conviction relief and does not violate their due process rights.

2. Criminal procedure -- request to enlarge petition properly denied. -- Where the trial court found that appellant failed to set forth any legitimate ground or justification for filing the enlarged petition, and on appeal, appellant failed to present any cogent reason for why the trial court's finding was clearly erroneous, the trial court was affirmed.

3. Criminal procedure -- Rule 37 petition -- when evidentiary hearing required. -- A court is not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing on a Rule 37 petition if it can conclusively determine from the record that the petitioner's contentions are meritless.

4. Criminal law -- points raised in petition barred from consideration -- no evidentiary hearing required. -- Where virtually all of the points raised in appellant's Rule 37 petition were barred from consideration for failure to raise them before the trial court at the original trial, the trial court did not err in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing.

5. Appeal & error -- errors must be raised before trial court & on direct appeal --exception. -- Errors, including constitutional errors, must generally be raised before the trial court and on direct appeal; however, there is an exception for errors that are so fundamental as to render the judgment of conviction void and subject to collateral attack.

6. Criminal procedure -- double-jeopardy protection -- fundamental right that can be raised for first time in Rule 37 petition. -- Double-jeopardy protection is a fundamental right; therefore, appellant could raise his double-jeopardy claim for the first time in his Rule 37 petition.

7. Constitutional law -- Double Jeopardy Clause -- legislature determines crimes & fixes punishments. -- It is the legislature that determines crimes, fixes punishments, and has the authority to impose cumulative punishments for the same conduct; the United States Supreme Court has stated that legislatures are free under the Double Jeopardy Clause to define crimes and fix punishments, but that courts may not impose more than one punishment for the same offense; because the substantive power to prescribe crimes and determine punishments is vested with the legislature, the question under the Double Jeopardy Clause whether punishments are multiple is essentially one of legislative intent.

8. Constitutional law -- Double Jeopardy Clause -- does not preclude imposition of cumulative punishments under two statutes that may be construed to proscribe same conduct. -- Simply because two criminal statutes may be construed to proscribe the same conduct does not mean that the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes the imposition, in a single trial, of cumulative punishments pursuant to those statutes; where a legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under two statues, regardless of whether those two statues proscribe the "same" conduct, a court's task of statutory construction is at an end and the prosecutor may seek and the trial court or jury may impose cumulative punishments under such statutes in a single trial.

9. Criminal procedure -- legislature's intent to assess additional penalty for violation of two statutes clear -- no double-jeopardy violation. -- Where the proscription against simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms [Ark. Code Ann. § 5-74-106(Repl. 1997)] was enacted to deter and punish ongoing organized criminal activity and to provide for penalties to punish and deter organized ongoing criminal activity, and section 5-74-106 specifically referred to committing a violation of § 5-64-401 (Supp. 1999)[possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance], while possessing a firearm, the General Assembly made it...