Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201 (2026)

Research References

ALR.

Validity, Construction, and Application of State Statutes and Rules Governing Requests for Postconviction DNA Testing. 72 A.L.R.6th 227.

Actual Innocence Exception to Procedural Bars in State Post-Conviction Proceedings. 97 A.L.R.6th 263 (2014).

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Survey of Legislation, 2001 Arkansas General Assembly, Criminal Law, 24 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 429.

Annual Survey of Caselaw, Criminal Law, 25 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 924.

J. Thomas Sullivan, Brady, Arkansas Rule 17.1, and Disclosure of Scientific Evidence and Expert Opinion, 35 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 245 (2013).

Case Notes

In General.

Because habeas petitioner had not sought postjudgment relief from the circuit court on the basis that he had been denied due process of law by the court's alleged failure to follow several procedural requirements, including delivering a copy of the petition to the prosecuting attorney and to the Attorney General, the Court was precluded from addressing the appeal as the due-process claims were not preserved for appellate review. Randall v. State, 368 Ark. 279, 244 S.W.3d 662 (2006).

Applicability.

Sections 16-112-201 — 16-112-207 do not provide a remedy to persons desirous of attacking a plea on the grounds that a defendant had a history of mental illness, that the plea was coerced, or obtained by false promises, threats, misinformation, deception, or misconduct. Graham v. State, 358 Ark. 296, 188 S.W.3d 893 (2004).

Just as Acts 2001, No. 1780 (the Act), §§ 16-112-201 — 16-112-207, does not provide a substitute for proceeding under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, the Act does not provide a substitute for a petition for writ of error coram nobis filed in the trial court. Graham v. State, 358 Ark. 296, 188 S.W.3d 893 (2004).

Where the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the denial of defendant's petition for postconviction relief seeking to retest certain DNA evidence and ordered that certain negroid hairs introduced into evidence be retested, but on remand the trial court instead entered an order finding that the state had complied with the requirement because the hairs had been retested in preparation for the second trial, the trial court had complied with the Supreme Court's mandate. Johnson v. State, 366 Ark. 390, 235 S.W.3d 872 (2006).

Because appellant did not proceed under Acts 2001, No. 1780, codified as § 16-112-201 et seq., and because he was incarcerated in another county, the habeas-corpus petition was properly denied by the circuit court located in the county of his conviction, as it did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. Hinkston v. State, 2016 Ark. 4 (2016).

Appellant inmate's claims in the petition for writ of habeas corpus that he was innocent and that the evidence was insufficient were not within the purview of the habeas proceeding, as appellant did not invoke Acts 2001, No. 1780, codified as § 16-112-201 et seq.; further, proceedings under Acts 2001, No. 1780 must be filed in the county of conviction, but appellant's petition was filed in the county of his incarceration. Jefferson v. Kelley, 2017 Ark. 29, 509 S.W.3d 626, cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 121, 199 L. Ed. 2d 74 (2017).

Because petitioner inmate challenged a conviction in another county, the circuit court did not have jurisdiction under Acts 2001, No. 1780, as amended by Acts 2005, No. 2250, § 16-112-201 et seq.Muldrow v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 126, 542 S.W.3d 856 (2018).

Grounds for Relief.

Circuit court did not err by denying appellant's petition to vacate and/or set aside the judgment convicting him of murder under Acts 2001, No. 1780 (codified as §§ 16-112-201 to 16-112-208), because his claims alleging prosecutorial misconduct, due process, equal protection, and denial of counsel violations were not cognizable in a petition under Acts 2001, No. 1780. Foster v. State, 2013 Ark. 61 (2013).

Guilty Pleas.

Denial of the prisoner's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Acts 2001, No. 1780 (the Act), §§ 16-112-201 — 16-112-207, was affirmed where (1) the prisoner claimed in the petition that the guilty plea was coerced and obtained by false promises, threats, misinformation, deception, and misconduct, (2) any challenge to the guilty plea was properly raised under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, (3) the remedy provided in an error coram nobis proceeding in the trial court was also available to the prisoner to raise allegations concerning the prisoner's history of mental illness and the claim that the plea was coerced, (4) in short, there were remedies in place for the prisoner to attack the plea of guilty, and (5) if the prisoner did not avail himself of them, the prisoner could not have expanded the narrow purview of the Act to encompass any and all claims concerning the validity of the guilty plea. Graham v. State, 358 Ark. 296, 188 S.W.3d 893 (2004).

Jurisdiction.

Circuit court did not clearly err when it concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to address petitioner's claim for habeas relief because petitioner's conviction was entered in another county; a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging entitlement to new scientific testing under § 16-112-201 et seq. must be addressed to the court that entered the conviction. Hill v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 118, 542 S.W.3d 852 (2018).

Procedure.

Inmate's requests for scientific testing were barred by his previous petitions under the law of the case doctrine. Hill v. State, 2010 Ark. 102 (2010).

Inmate's motion under §§ 16-112-201 to 16-112-208 for additional forensic testing of evidence that had already been determined, on prior similar motions, to have low probative value and to be unlikely to substantially advance his claim of actual innocence of an armed robbery, was properly summarily denied by the trial court. Cooper v. State, 2013 Ark. 180 (2013).

Relief Denied.

Defendant's petition did not comport with the prevailing rules of procedure and his appeal was dismissed as he merely concluded that he was innocent and wished to have testing performed to prove that fact; defendant failed to state the basis for proving his innocence with scientific testing, identify the evidence to be tested and specify the scientific tests to be conducted on the evidence, and he made no showing that good cause prevented him from filing his petition within 36 months from the date of his conviction. Douthitt v. State, 366 Ark. 579, 237 S.W.3d 76 (2006).

Habeas corpus relief was not warranted under §§ 16-112-201 to 16-112-208 because, even if appellant's deoxyribonucleic acid and fingerprints were not found on a mask, his actual innocence would not have been established in light of the evidence as a whole where a witness recognized appellant's clothing and voice; no evidentiary hearing was required because the petition, files, and records showed that appellant was entitled to no relief. Moreover, appellant was not entitled to relief on the grounds of errors made by the trial court and ineffectiveness of counsel because petitions under §§ 16-112-201 to 16-112-208 were limited to claims related to scientific testing of evidence, and appellant failed to rebut the presumption against timeliness where the testing suggested by appellant was either available at the time of his trial or not shown to be substantially more probative than technology available at the time. King v. State, 2013 Ark. 133 (2013).

Because appellant, convicted of capital murder as an accomplice, failed to state a basis on which the trial court could have ordered scientific testing, he could not prevail on appeal; appellant failed to satisfy the statutory requirements because the results of proposed testing to determine whether there were other individuals at the crime scene would not support the theory of defense he relied on in a way to establish his innocence or raise a reasonable probability that he did not commit the offense. Evidence connecting another person to the crime scene would not exonerate defendant. Bienemy v. State, 2016 Ark. 427, 504 S.W.3d 588 (2016).

Trial court did not clearly err in holding that death row defendant, convicted of a 1993 murder, failed to meet the predicate requirements for DNA testing of 26 pieces of evidence because the proposed testing could not have raised a reasonable probability that defendant did not commit the offense given the significant evidence tying him to the murder; the presence of another male's DNA from testing of items such as the Caucasian hairs could not significantly advance defendant's claim of innocence. Johnson v. State, 2019 Ark. 391, 591 S.W.3d 265 (2019).

Scientific Evidence.

Where appellant gave the police a statement in which he admitted shooting the murder victim, appellant failed to show that DNA testing of blood splatter would have proved that he was actually innocent of the crime as required by § 16-112-103(a)(1). The trial court did not err by denying his petition to vacate or set aside the judgment pursuant to § 16-112-201 et seq. Leaks v. State, 371 Ark. 581, 268 S.W.3d 866 (2007).

Whether or not the court correctly determined identity was not at issue as required to grant a motion for testing under § 16-112-202, and appellant, an inmate, was not entitled to relief. More fundamentally, he failed to show a basis to commence a proceeding for the writ under either basis set out in subsection (a) of this section. Guy v. State, 2011 Ark. 305 (2011).

Denial of inmate's petition for habeas corpus under §§ 16-112-201 to 16-112-208 was appropriate because he had sought and received DNA testing, the results of which were inconclusive and the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory did not have a duty to perform, or direct to be performed, additional mitochondrial DNA testing, § 16-112-208(b). Pitts v. State, 2011 Ark. 322 (2011).

In appellant's rape case, a court properly denied DNA testing of other hairs found at the scene because genetic material from two individuals was discovered, with the major component attributable to appellant, and another person's hair at the scene would in no way preclude appellant's having committed the offenses. Pankau v. State, 2013 Ark. 162 (2013).

Supreme Court reinvested jurisdiction in the circuit court and granted petitioner permission to seek relief via a writ of error coram nobis. A review conducted by the federal government concluded that there were errors in a forensic hair analyst's work, and the prosecutor conceded that the analyst's work was material to petitioner's capital felony murder conviction. Pitts v. State, 2016 Ark. 345, 501 S.W.3d 803 (2016).

Stay.

Trial court had jurisdiction to consider defendant's petition for scientific testing even where proceedings might be pending before the state Supreme Court or a state appellate court, thus, the state Supreme Court was authorized to issue a stay of proceedings before it in order to allow the trial court to consider defendant's petition for scientific testing, including whether to hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter. Echols v. State, 350 Ark. 42, 84 S.W.3d 424 (2002).

Time Limitations.

Petitioner was not entitled to mandamus relief (seeking a ruling on the motion for extension of time to lodge the record on appeal), because the petitioner filed his petition to vacate and or to set aside the judgment in the circuit court nearly five years after the date of his conviction. Section 16-112-202(10)(B) mandated that there shall be a rebuttable presumption against timeliness for any motion not made within thirty-six months of the date of conviction and since the DNA testing was available at the time of his trial, the petitioner's attempt to rebut the presumption against timeliness failed, and nothing in the record suggested that the prosecuting attorney was properly served and the petition for writ of mandamus did not allege that the prosecuting attorney was served. Mitchael v. State, 2012 Ark. 256 (2012).

Circuit court did not err by denying appellant's petition for DNA testing under Acts 2001, No. 1780 (codified as §§ 16-112-201 to 16-112-208), because it was filed 44 months after entry of the judgment convicting him of murder and he failed to rebut the presumption against timeliness under § 16-112-202(10). Foster v. State, 2013 Ark. 61 (2013).

Cited: Davis v. State, 366 Ark. 401, 235 S.W.3d 902 (2006); Aaron v. State, 2010 Ark. 249 (2010); Hill v. State, 2012 Ark. 204 (2012); Bliss v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 315 (2012); Girley v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 447 (2012).