{
  "id": 1889924,
  "name": "Harry COPLEN v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Coplen v. State",
  "decision_date": "1989-03-20",
  "docket_number": "CR 88-126",
  "first_page": "272",
  "last_page": "273",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "298 Ark. 272"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "766 S.W.2d 612"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "265 Ark. 964",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 Ark. 376",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1895739
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/294/0376-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 Ark. 442",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1709241
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/270/0442-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "287 Ark. 88",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1876546
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/287/0088-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 Ark. 84",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1877645
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/285/0084-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 252,
    "char_count": 3064,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.895,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.33514938002294e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4402090623816292
    },
    "sha256": "ddc26ca84cca11a79720ad0c6378e5ef65b47ab258eec9f276e2ae06d8cc88a4",
    "simhash": "1:e2873266634c8f7c",
    "word_count": 534
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:53.094543+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Purtle, J., dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Harry COPLEN v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nThe trial court denied the appellant\u2019s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and other post-conviction relief. We affirm.\nHarry Copien was convicted of two counts of battery involving the young children of his girlfriend. He originally advised his attorney to appeal his conviction, but he changed his mind. After the time for filing the record had passed, he changed his mind again and decided to appeal. He filed a motion for rule on clerk and two motions for a belated appeal, which we denied.\nCopien now attempts, by use of a postconviction relief petition, to obtain a review of an alleged evidentiary error that occurred at trial, as well as a review of our denial of his belated appeal requests. At the time Copien filed his petition with the trial court, he was not in custody.\nThe trial court ruled that the petition stated no grounds for either habeas corpus relief or A.R.Cr.P. Rule 37 relief, and we agree. First of all, Coplen is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because his petition did not state that his commitment was invalid on its face or that the convicting court was without jurisdiction. George v. State, 285 Ark. 84, 685 S.W.2d 141 (1985). Second, Rule 37 is not meant to be a substitute for direct appeal and is not designed for review of a mere error that occurred at trial. Neff v. State, 287 Ark. 88, 696 S.W.2d 736 (1985); Neal v. State, 270 Ark. 442, 605 S.W.2d 421 (1980).\nWe have reviewed Coplen\u2019s request for a belated appeal three times. He claimed he was under a great deal of stress and was not thinking clearly when he decided not to pursue his appeal. He cites no convincing authority for his claim that we have denied him due process of law by refusing to docket his appeal.\nWe also note that Coplen was not in custody when his petition was filed, a prerequisite for Rule 37 relief. A.R.Cr.P. Rule 37.1; Malone v. State, 294 Ark. 376, 742 S.W.2d 945 (1988).\nAffirmed.\nPurtle, J., dissents.\nCoplen\u2019s attorney has not taken responsibility for the late filing of the record. See In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      },
      {
        "text": "John I. Purtle, Justice,\ndissenting. I concede that the majority is technically correct on the \u201cin custody\u201d provision of A.R.Cr.P. Rule 37. However, I cannot agree that the appellant should be foreclosed from pursuing any relief under Rule 37. It is truly a technicality to require a convicted person to be behind bars before he may pursue post-conviction relief. After all, he stands convicted in the circuit court. He may have already been sent to the Department of Correction, in which case he has current \u201cstanding\u201d to bring this petition. In my opinion Rule 37 should be available to any person convicted by a circuit court, provided no direct appeal is pending.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "John I. Purtle, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gean, Gean & Gean, by: Lawrence W. Fitting, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Harry COPLEN v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 88-126\n766 S.W.2d 612\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 20, 1989\n[Rehearing denied May 1, 1989.]\nGean, Gean & Gean, by: Lawrence W. Fitting, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0272-01",
  "first_page_order": 300,
  "last_page_order": 301
}