Gonzales v. Evans

822 S.W.2d 390, 308 Ark. 264, 1992 Ark. LEXIS 569
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided February 3, 1992·No. 91-264·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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

822 S.W.2d 390 (Gonzales v. Evans) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McConaughy v. Lockhart
840 S.W.2d 166 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1992)