Gonzales v. Evans

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Gonzales v. Evans

822 S.W.2d 390, 308 Ark. 264, 1992 Ark. LEXIS 569

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedFebruary 3, 1992

Docket91-264

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 822 S.W.2d 390 (Gonzales v. Evans) 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

Gonzales v. Evans, 822 S.W.2d 390, 308 Ark. 264, 1992 Ark. LEXIS 569 (Ark. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant has filed a motion to permit him to file handwritten briefs, alleging that he is without access to a typewriter. We have held that permission to file handwritten briefs will be granted when a litigant makes a showing that a typewriter is not available and that his suit has substantial merit. Patterson v. State, 289 Ark. 564, 712 S.W.2d 922 (1986). Appellant is incarcerated under concurrent sentences for aggravated robbery and criminal use of a prohibited weapon. The judgment of conviction was affirmed in Gonzales v. State, 301 Ark. 98, 782 S.W.2d 359 (1990).

Appellant is now appealing from the denial of a petition for habeas corpus, raising issues concerning his arrest, the trial court’s refusal to suppress evidence, the procedures by which he was identified prior to arrest and ineffective assistance of counsel. None of these alleged flaws are cognizable by habeas corpus. George v. State, 285 Ark. 84, 685 S.W.2d 141 (1985). Accordingly, appellant has failed to make a substantial showing of merit and his motion is denied.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant has filed a motion to permit him to file handwritten briefs, alleging that he is without access to a typewriter. We have held that permission to file handwritten briefs will be granted when a litigant makes a showing that a typewriter is not available and that his suit has substantial merit. Patterson v. State, 289 Ark. 564, 712 S.W.2d 922 (1986). Appellant is incarcerated under concurrent sentences for aggravated robbery and criminal use of a prohibited weapon. The judgment of conviction was affirmed in Gonzales v. State, 301 Ark. 98, 782 S.W.2d 359 (1990).

Appellant is now appealing from the denial of a petition for habeas corpus, raising issues concerning his arrest, the trial court’s refusal to suppress evidence, the procedures by which he was identified prior to arrest and ineffective assistance of counsel. None of these alleged flaws are cognizable by habeas corpus. George v. State, 285 Ark. 84, 685 S.W.2d 141 (1985). Accordingly, appellant has failed to make a substantial showing of merit and his motion is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

822 S.W.2d 390, 308 Ark. 264, 1992 Ark. LEXIS 569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzales-v-evans-ark-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack