{ "id": 3491060, "name": "Bruce Edward LEAKS v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Leaks v. State", "decision_date": "2007-11-29", "docket_number": "CR 07-912", "first_page": "581", "last_page": "584", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "371 Ark. 581" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "268 S.W.3d 866" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "350 Ark. 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1404470 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "per curiam" }, { "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/350/0042-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-112-103", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)(l)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 Ark. 236", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 9159422 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "per curiam" }, { "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/324/0236-01" ] }, { "cite": "338 Ark. 606", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 243516 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "per curiam" }, { "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/338/0606-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 16-112-201", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 Ark. 182", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 939042 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/345/0182-01" ] }, { "cite": "339 Ark. 348", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 130677 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/339/0348-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 349, "char_count": 4918, "ocr_confidence": 0.769, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08, "percentile": 0.47149003667781403 }, "sha256": "a934370cee7f43d5b5159b7156a964fe9347f9cbb6fe1fc413c7861d693f3b60", "simhash": "1:f14a72868088ff53", "word_count": 803 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:33:16.265391+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Bruce Edward LEAKS v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nIn 1997, appellant Bruce Edward Leaks was iam. by a jury of first-degree murder and sentenced as a habitual offender to 480 months\u2019 imprisonment. This court reversed the judgment of conviction from his first trial. Leaks v. State, 339 Ark. 348, 5 S.W.3d 448 (1999). On retrial, he was again convicted of first-degree murder and a sentence of 540 months was imposed. We affirmed. Leaks v. State, 345 Ark. 182, 45 S.W.3d 363 (2001).\nIn 2007, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se \u201csecond, or successive petition \u2014 to, vacate and/or set-side judgment\u201d pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001 as amended by Act 2250 of 2005 and codified as Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 16-112-201 \u2014 16-112-208 (Repl. 2006). The trial court denied the petition without a hearing, and appellant has lodged an appeal here from the order.\nNow before us is appellant\u2019s pro se motion for a copy of the record at public expense and for extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. We need not consider the motion as it is apparent that appellant could not prevail in this appeal if it were permitted to go forward. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and hold the motion moot. An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Pardue v. State, 338 Ark. 606, 999 S.W.2d 198 (1999) (per curiam); Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996) (per curiam).\nAppellant was convicted of murdering William Earl Little-john during a heated argument. Evidence adduced at trial showed that he went to his brother\u2019s apartment, where the victim had been staying, to confront the victim about various issues. During the ensuing argument, appellant shot Littlejohn from approximately four feet away with a .38 revolver. The victim was able to reach a bedroom where appellant\u2019s nephew had been sleeping and identified appellant as the shooter before he died. Appellant fled the scene of the crime and initially denied any involvement in the murder when questioned. However, appellant eventually gave the police a statement in which he admitted shooting the victim, but denied that he intended to kill the victim.\nIn his petition under the act, appellant asked for DNA testing, and for testing of \u201cblood pattern splatter,\u201d \u201cblood trace pattern\u201d and \u201cblood drops.\u201d Therein, he generally maintained that his innocence would be proven by these tests, and contended that his identity was at issue at trial.\nAct 1780 provides that a writ of habeas corpus can issue based upon new scientific evidence proving a person actually innocent of the offense or offenses for which he or she was convicted. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-112-103(a)(l) (Repl. 2006) and sections 16-112-201 \u2014 208; see also Echols v. State, 350 Ark. 42, 84 S.W.3d 424 (2002) (per curiam) (decision under prior law). It is a requirement of the statute that the \u201cidentity of the perpetrator was at issue during the investigation or prosecution of the offense being challenged[.]\u201d Section 16-112-202(7).\nAt trial, appellant\u2019s nephew testified as to the victim\u2019s identification of appellant, and appellant\u2019s confession was introduced into evidence. Although appellant did not testify in his own behalf, his defense was that the victim\u2019s murder was accidental rather than deliberate and premeditated, and that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find that appellant\u2019s mental state supported the charge of first-degree murder.\nAppellant\u2019s petition failed to provide any cogent explanation that supported his claim that his identity was at issue, and the evidence introduced at trial left no doubt that appellant committed the crime. The trial transcript pages to which appellant referred in the petition did not contain any indication that someone other than appellant could have committed the crime. Thus, appellant failed to make a prima facie showing that his identity was at issue during either the investigation or prosecution of the criminal case.\nMoreover, with regard to the requirement that the requested testing prove the petitioner\u2019s actual innocence, appellant failed to show that various tests of blood splatter patterns or blood drops would have proved that he was actually innocent of the crime. Instead, appellant made mere conclusory statements that he was innocent of the crime and that the testing would prove that he was innocent. Also, because appellant confessed to the crime, he cannot later claim actual innocence for the purpose of obtaining scientific testing.\nAs the arguments made by appellant did not present a proper basis for postconviction relief pursuant to Act 1780 with regard to actual innocence or identity, appellant could not be successful on appeal.\nAppeal dismissed; motion moot.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Appellant, pro se.", "No response." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Bruce Edward LEAKS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 07-912\n268 S.W.3d 866\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 29, 2007\nAppellant, pro se.\nNo response." }, "file_name": "0581-01", "first_page_order": 607, "last_page_order": 610 }