Burns v. Lockhart

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Burns v. Lockhart

738 S.W.2d 423, 293 Ark. 514, 1987 Ark. LEXIS 2390

DecidedNovember 9, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 738 S.W.2d 423 (Burns v. Lockhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burns v. Lockhart, 738 S.W.2d 423, 293 Ark. 514, 1987 Ark. LEXIS 2390 (Ark. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam.

Petitioner has filed handwritten petitions to be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis and for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition to proceed as a pauper fails to comply with Rule 28 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus fails to state grounds which make a substantial showing that petitioner is entitled to relief. The petitions are, therefore, denied. See Glick v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 417, 706, S.W.2d 178 (1986) and Hayes v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 419, 706 S.W.2d 179 (1986).

Purtle, J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per curiam.

Petitioner has filed handwritten petitions to be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis and for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition to proceed as a pauper fails to comply with Rule 28 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus fails to state grounds which make a substantial showing that petitioner is entitled to relief. The petitions are, therefore, denied. See Glick v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 417, 706, S.W.2d 178 (1986) and Hayes v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 419, 706 S.W.2d 179 (1986).

Purtle, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

738 S.W.2d 423, 293 Ark. 514, 1987 Ark. LEXIS 2390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-lockhart-ark-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack