Smith v. Brownlee, 2010 Ark. 266 (Ark. 5/27/2010), 09-1054.
| Decision Date | 27 May 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 09-1054.,09-1054. |
| Parties | MELVIN SMITH, JR, Appellant, v. LEROY BROWNLEE, CHAIRMAN, ARKANSAS BOARD OF PAROLE, AND RAY HOBBS, INTERIM DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Page 1
v.
LEROY BROWNLEE, CHAIRMAN, ARKANSAS BOARD OF PAROLE, AND RAY HOBBS, INTERIM DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Appellees.
Pro Se Motion to Add Additional Information to Appeal [Circuit Court of Jefferson County, CV 2009-370, Hon. Jodi Raines Dennis, Judge].
Motion Treated as Motion to Supplement Record and Denied; Appeal Dismissed.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Melvin Smith, Jr., who is incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction ("ADC") serving a sentence of life without parole, filed a pro se petition in Jefferson County Circuit Court for a writ of mandamus. Appellant sought to compel the named defendants, in their official capacities as chairman of the board of parole and director of the ADC,1 to schedule a hearing for appellant's release. The circuit court entered an order denying the petition, and appellant lodged an appeal of the order in this court. The parties have submitted their briefs.
Appellant filed a motion to add additional information to the appeal, which we treat
Page 2
as a motion to supplement the record on appeal. Appellant would add a letter that appellant received from the governor's office into the record for consideration. However, there is no indication that the proposed supplemental letter was before the circuit court for its consideration. This court has long and consistently held that it cannot, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, receive testimony or consider anything outside of the record below. Hudson v. Kyle, 365 Ark. 341, 229 S.W.3d 890 (2006); see also Clark v. Pine Bluff Civil Serv. Comm'n, 353 Ark. 810, 120 S.W.3d 541 (2003); Miles v. State, 350 Ark. 243, 85 S.W.3d 907 (2002); Boswell, Tucker & Brewster v. Shirron, 324 Ark. 276, 921 S.W.2d 580 (1996); Jacobs v. State, 316 Ark. 96, 870 S.W.2d 740 (1994) (per curiam); McLeod v. Mabry, 206 Ark. 618, 177 S.W.2d 46 (1944).
We accordingly deny appellant's motion, and, in addition, we address the merits of the appeal. This court has consistently held that an appeal of the denial of postconviction relief, including appeals from the denial of extraordinary relief, will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. See Washington v. Norris, 2010 Ark. 104 (per curiam); Grissom v. State, 2009 Ark. 557 (per curiam); Pineda v. Norris, 2009 Ark. 471 (per curiam); Lukach v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. State, CR12-1090
...record below. Darrough v. State, 2013 Ark. 28 (per curiam); Lowe v. State, 2012 Ark. 185, ___ S.W.3d ___ (per curiam); Smith v. Brownlee, 2010 Ark. 266 (per curiam);McLeod v. Mabry, 206 Ark. 618, 177 S.W.2d 46 (1944). We also dismiss the appeal because it is clear that appellant could not p......
-
Darrough v. State
...testimony or consider anything outside of therecord below. Lowe v. State, 2012 Ark. 185, ___ S.W.3d ___ (per curiam); Smith v. Brownlee, 2010 Ark. 266 (per curiam); McLeod v. Mabry, 206 Ark. 618, 177 S.W.2d 46 (1944). Turning to the merits of the appeal, we note that a circuit court's denia......
-
Holloway v. Beebe
...and we cannot consider materials or testimony outside of the record below. See Guy v. State, 2011 Ark. 305 (per curiam); Smith v. Brownlee, 2010 Ark. 266 (per curiam); Munson v. Ark. Dep't of Corr. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment Comm., 2009 Ark. 469 (per curiam). The motion is acc......
-
Guy v. State, CR 10-727
...in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, receive testimony or consider anything outside of the record below. Smith v. Brownlee, 2010 Ark. 266 (per curiam).A review of the record that was before the trial court makes clear that the court did not err in denying relief as provided in the......