R. David Lewis
Attorney at Law
1109 Kavanaugh Boulevard
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205.
P: (501) 664-0818 F: (501) 664-3884
rdavidlewis@yahoo.com Also licensed in California
SUPREME COURT'
'CRIMINAL LAW RULE 37
ADKINS V STATE Pet filed rule 37 petition and motion for transcript pro se at the same time, circuit court dismissed it as not being verified as required by rule 37c but supreme court reversed the dismissal because the verification on the motion for transcript said the allegations in the rule 37 petition were true and therefore the requirement of verification was met.
CHUNESTUDY V STATE CRIMINAL LAW RULE 37
Convicted of rape of his daughter in Greene County, petition alleges lawyer was negligent for not moving for directed verdict at clost of evidence. Trial court denied motion on grounds such a motion would not have been successful. We affirm. There was evidence he committed rape of his daughter who was under 18 so such a motion would not have been granted.
Petition also alleges lawyer was negligent by not calling a witness to rebut testimony of an expert witness for the state about behavior typical of vitims of child abuse but appellant does not show there was a specific witness who could have been called or show how he was prejudiced so he failed to make a showing counsel was ineffective,.
He alleges counsel was ineffective for failing ot recall the victim and cross examine her about inconsistencies and her pregnancies but does not disclose what inconsistencies there were or what a doctor would have said about pregnancies.
He then alleges insufficient investigation and that counsel did not issue any subpoenas but named only one person who could have been called but didn't allege that that witness would have provided any specific information.
He alleges court erred in not appointing counsel for him for the hearing but the supreme court has not held a state must provide counsel for a defendant at a hearing attacking his conviction. Besides the petition does not allege sufficient facts to show counself was not functioning as counsel guaranteed by 6th amendment or that there was any specific issue he was not able to raise at the hearing without a lawyer or a copy of transcript of trial.
This guy had sex with his daughter for years and later married her.
CRIMINAL LAW RULE 37
EWELLS V STATE Petition was dismissed as untimely.It was second petition. Can't raise second rule 37 unless first one was dismissed without prejudice and it wasn't. Also have to file a rule 37 within 60 days of appellate mandate affirming conviction and this one was late.
FROST V STATE Motion for nunc pro tunc order was a request for postconviction relief and was simply a request to modify the sentence and a court is without jurisdiction to modify a sentence once it has been put into execution. If it is a collateral attack on the judgment it is untimely as it was not filed within 60 days of mandate
GARDNER V HOBBS Habeas corpus alleges double jeapardy by conviction of capital murder and the underlying offense but that does not violate double jeapardy. Habeas must demonstrate lack of jurisdicion or that judgment is void on its face and this does neither. He also alleges ineffective assistance of counsel but that is not grounds for habeas relief.
GUNDERMAN V STATE Convicted in 2012, files motion for belate appeal in 2014. Motions for belated appeal must be made within 18 months and he filed the motion within that time but not the record without which the motion could not be filed so motion was untimely and it is dismissed.
ADMINSTRATIVE ORDER 17 Application fee of 125 to take the professional practicum. Wtf?
IN RE ARKANSAS BAR EXAMINATION FEE is raised from 400 to 500.
INGRAM V STATE Writ of certiorai to complete the record with 6 exhibits but because it is clear appeallant could not prevail on appeal we dismiss appeal and motions alleges counsel failed to ask for hearing as to his state of mind when the crime was committed but a review of record shows the medical exam did cover those issues and he was found competent and counself vigourously crossexamined the witness on those issues. He failed to show a different expert would have come to a different conclusion. Conclusory claims are not sufficient.Alleges counsel didn't raise a cultural defense regarding disciplinary measure but doesn't demonstrate facts that would have established a cultural defense.
ANARIAN JACKSON V STATE Petition for error corum nobis Alleges state violated brady by suppressing statements of a witness that defendant was in Dallas at time of crime but defendant was aware of that defense and there is no evidence the evidence was withheld from defense.
MAZUREK V PIAZZA Petition for mandamus to get piazza to rule on motion for modification of order denying postconviction relief. Piazza filed a response wo which was appended a copy of his order disposing of the motion saying he never saw the motion to which we respond a court must have in place a system whereby a judge is notified pleadings filed in a case in his court.As for request to require respondent to correct the original order that is not by mandamus.
PENNINGTON V HOBBS Habeas corpus, he can't proceed unless he can prove lack of jurisdiciotn or commitment invalid on its face. He alleges that as a minor he can't be sentenced to life under Miller but Miller only prohibits mandatory life sentences for minors and this wasn't mandatory because the jury could have given him 5-50 or life.
ROWAN V, STATE Rule 37 alleges lawyer'sfailure to secure the witnesses that pet requested left him no alternative but to plead guilty but he did not show prejudice because his claims concerning the witnesses that couself failed to secure were conclusory in nature. It is incumbent on pet to name the witness, provide a summary of the testimony, and establish the testimony would have been admissible into evidence.None of his persons were named, there was no summary of testimoney, and no showing the tesimony would have been admissible.He has not shown his plea was not voluantarily entered.
WHITE V. STATE WRIT OF ERROR CORUM NOBIS says he is innocent, the victime has recanted and appellant has a witness who has written a letter that says the victim told him she had lied about his conduct and victim's mother had manipulated him into silence but a claim of recanted testimony is not cognizable in error corum nobis. [why not-it was fact not known at time of trial]
Attorney at Law
1109 Kavanaugh Boulevard
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205.
P: (501) 664-0818 F: (501) 664-3884
rdavidlewis@yahoo.com Also licensed in California
SUPREME COURT'
'CRIMINAL LAW RULE 37
ADKINS V STATE Pet filed rule 37 petition and motion for transcript pro se at the same time, circuit court dismissed it as not being verified as required by rule 37c but supreme court reversed the dismissal because the verification on the motion for transcript said the allegations in the rule 37 petition were true and therefore the requirement of verification was met.
CHUNESTUDY V STATE CRIMINAL LAW RULE 37
Convicted of rape of his daughter in Greene County, petition alleges lawyer was negligent for not moving for directed verdict at clost of evidence. Trial court denied motion on grounds such a motion would not have been successful. We affirm. There was evidence he committed rape of his daughter who was under 18 so such a motion would not have been granted.
Petition also alleges lawyer was negligent by not calling a witness to rebut testimony of an expert witness for the state about behavior typical of vitims of child abuse but appellant does not show there was a specific witness who could have been called or show how he was prejudiced so he failed to make a showing counsel was ineffective,.
He alleges counsel was ineffective for failing ot recall the victim and cross examine her about inconsistencies and her pregnancies but does not disclose what inconsistencies there were or what a doctor would have said about pregnancies.
He then alleges insufficient investigation and that counsel did not issue any subpoenas but named only one person who could have been called but didn't allege that that witness would have provided any specific information.
He alleges court erred in not appointing counsel for him for the hearing but the supreme court has not held a state must provide counsel for a defendant at a hearing attacking his conviction. Besides the petition does not allege sufficient facts to show counself was not functioning as counsel guaranteed by 6th amendment or that there was any specific issue he was not able to raise at the hearing without a lawyer or a copy of transcript of trial.
This guy had sex with his daughter for years and later married her.
CRIMINAL LAW RULE 37
EWELLS V STATE Petition was dismissed as untimely.It was second petition. Can't raise second rule 37 unless first one was dismissed without prejudice and it wasn't. Also have to file a rule 37 within 60 days of appellate mandate affirming conviction and this one was late.
FROST V STATE Motion for nunc pro tunc order was a request for postconviction relief and was simply a request to modify the sentence and a court is without jurisdiction to modify a sentence once it has been put into execution. If it is a collateral attack on the judgment it is untimely as it was not filed within 60 days of mandate
GARDNER V HOBBS Habeas corpus alleges double jeapardy by conviction of capital murder and the underlying offense but that does not violate double jeapardy. Habeas must demonstrate lack of jurisdicion or that judgment is void on its face and this does neither. He also alleges ineffective assistance of counsel but that is not grounds for habeas relief.
GUNDERMAN V STATE Convicted in 2012, files motion for belate appeal in 2014. Motions for belated appeal must be made within 18 months and he filed the motion within that time but not the record without which the motion could not be filed so motion was untimely and it is dismissed.
ADMINSTRATIVE ORDER 17 Application fee of 125 to take the professional practicum. Wtf?
IN RE ARKANSAS BAR EXAMINATION FEE is raised from 400 to 500.
INGRAM V STATE Writ of certiorai to complete the record with 6 exhibits but because it is clear appeallant could not prevail on appeal we dismiss appeal and motions alleges counsel failed to ask for hearing as to his state of mind when the crime was committed but a review of record shows the medical exam did cover those issues and he was found competent and counself vigourously crossexamined the witness on those issues. He failed to show a different expert would have come to a different conclusion. Conclusory claims are not sufficient.Alleges counsel didn't raise a cultural defense regarding disciplinary measure but doesn't demonstrate facts that would have established a cultural defense.
ANARIAN JACKSON V STATE Petition for error corum nobis Alleges state violated brady by suppressing statements of a witness that defendant was in Dallas at time of crime but defendant was aware of that defense and there is no evidence the evidence was withheld from defense.
MAZUREK V PIAZZA Petition for mandamus to get piazza to rule on motion for modification of order denying postconviction relief. Piazza filed a response wo which was appended a copy of his order disposing of the motion saying he never saw the motion to which we respond a court must have in place a system whereby a judge is notified pleadings filed in a case in his court.As for request to require respondent to correct the original order that is not by mandamus.
PENNINGTON V HOBBS Habeas corpus, he can't proceed unless he can prove lack of jurisdiciotn or commitment invalid on its face. He alleges that as a minor he can't be sentenced to life under Miller but Miller only prohibits mandatory life sentences for minors and this wasn't mandatory because the jury could have given him 5-50 or life.
ROWAN V, STATE Rule 37 alleges lawyer'sfailure to secure the witnesses that pet requested left him no alternative but to plead guilty but he did not show prejudice because his claims concerning the witnesses that couself failed to secure were conclusory in nature. It is incumbent on pet to name the witness, provide a summary of the testimony, and establish the testimony would have been admissible into evidence.None of his persons were named, there was no summary of testimoney, and no showing the tesimony would have been admissible.He has not shown his plea was not voluantarily entered.
WHITE V. STATE WRIT OF ERROR CORUM NOBIS says he is innocent, the victime has recanted and appellant has a witness who has written a letter that says the victim told him she had lied about his conduct and victim's mother had manipulated him into silence but a claim of recanted testimony is not cognizable in error corum nobis. [why not-it was fact not known at time of trial]