Wallace v. State
| Decision Date | 27 July 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. CR 09-658,CR 09-658 |
| Parties | CLAUDE WALLACE APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appellant Claude Wallace appeals the denial of his petition for relief under Act 1780 of 2001, codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-201 to -208 (Supp. 2006). The statute allows a convicted person to file a petition to vacate and set aside the judgment and seek relief if the person claims under penalty of perjury that scientific evidence not available at trial establishes actual innocence, or that the scientific predicate for the claim could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence, and the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact-finder would find the petitioner guilty of the underlying offense.
On appeal, appellant argues: (1) that the circuit court denied him due process when it denied his petition without an evidentiary hearing; (2) that the circuit court erred by findingthat his petition failed to properly state a claim for relief, was untimely, and was not properly verified or made under penalty of perjury; and (3) that he was entitled to a grant of default judgment on his petition. We find no error and affirm.
On July 17, 1992, appellant was convicted by a Mississippi County jury of two counts of kidnapping, two counts of rape, and one count of burglary. Because he was a habitual offender, he received sixty years' imprisonment on each count of kidnapping, life sentences for each count of rape, and forty years' imprisonment for burglary, all to be served consecutively. His convictions were affirmed by this court on direct appeal. Wallace v. State, 314 Ark. 247, 862 S.W.2d 235 (1993).
On October 9, 2008, appellant filed a Petition to Vacate or Set Aside the Judgment, alleging his actual innocence and requesting relief pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201. In his petition, appellant specifically alleged only that the fingerprint evidence that the State had recovered from the crime scene had never been identified or matched. Appellant also included claims that he was denied due process and equal protection and made allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and abuses of discretion on behalf of the circuit court.1 The State responded that it had no objection to having the fingerprint evidence retested and compared to the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). In an order filed January 6, 2009, the circuit court indicated that it had "serious concerns" about appellant's petition, includingwhether the court was jurisdictionally barred from considering it. However, the circuit court noted that, due to the State's willingness to retest the fingerprints, the court would reserve all issues, including jurisdictional ones, until after the retesting. Thereafter, that fingerprint comparison was done, and no match was found in the AFIS system.
On March 2, 2009, the circuit court denied appellant's petition. The court found that appellant's petition failed, pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-112-202, to specify what other additional items of evidence, other than the fingerprints, that he wanted tested or retested; whether those items were tested prior to trial; what methods were used to test those items; what method of testing he now requested; and whether the testing he proposed was reasonable in scope, utilized scientifically sound methods, and was consistent with accepted forensic practices. The circuit court also noted that appellant's petition was brought sixteen years after his conviction and that Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-112-202(10)(B) creates a rebuttable presumption that any motion made more than thirty-six months after the date of conviction is untimely. The court found that appellant's petition was based solely on his assertions of innocence, that he failed to rebut the presumption of untimeliness, that he failed to set forth any new evidence or new method of technology substantially more probative than prior available testing methods, that he failed to set forth his claims under penalty of perjury as required by Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-112-201(a), and that his petition was not verified as required by Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-112-203(c)(1)(A).
Appellant first asserts that the circuit court denied him due process of law by denying his petition without first holding an evidentiary hearing. Although Arkansas Code Annotated§ 16-112-205(a) states that the circuit court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing if the petition, files, and records conclusively show that the petition is entitled to no relief, we need not address the merits of appellant's constitutional argument because we have held many times that constitutional claims may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Randall v. State, 368 Ark. 279, 244 S.W.3d 662 (2006). We are precluded from addressing appellant's due-process claim because it is not preserved for appellate review.
To continue reading
Request your trial