Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-91-204 (2026)

Legislative intent

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is the express intent of this subchapter to comply with the requirements of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, in an effort to obtain the benefits of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, concerning time limitations in which federal habeas corpus proceedings and appeals must be considered and decided, and for other purposes. Throughout this subchapter, references to “post-conviction” proceedings or petitions refer solely to those proceedings or petitions which are filed pursuant to the state rule or statute in which claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are cognizable, such as Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specific reference to Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure was avoided only because the General Assembly is aware that the form of relief provided for by Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure may, at some point in the future, be provided for by a different rule or statute. It is the intent of the General Assembly to ensure that this subchapter apply to Rule 37-type post-conviction proceedings, not to post-conviction proceedings in which claims of ineffective assistance are not cognizable. It is the intent of § 16-91-202(e) to allow the appointment of counsel in the very limited circumstance in which, because of unique training, experience, or background, an attorney is clearly competent and qualified to represent an indigent petitioner in a capital post-conviction proceeding, but otherwise does not meet all of the criteria of § 16-91-202(c). Section 16-91-202(e) was created for the specific purpose of permitting the appointment of experienced attorneys, including but not limited to, former prosecutors and judges who, because of the nature of their practice, are uniquely qualified to represent capital defendants but do not meet the specific defense-related requirements of § 16-91-202(c).

History. Acts 1997, No. 925, § 2.

U.S. Code. The habeas corpus reform provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, referred to in this section, are codified primarily at 28 U.S.C. § 2244, § 2253 et seq., and § 2261 et seq. The Act also amended Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22.

Case Notes

Denial of Investigator

Circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the inmate authorization to retain an investigator to probe into issues of jury bias and misconduct because the inmate failed to demonstrate the need for an investigator, as nothing required the inmate's counsel to rely exclusively on an investigator to investigate whether one of the jurors had failed to disclose information accurately during voir dire and the inmate admitted that he did not know if any misrepresentation occurred. Williams v. State, 369 Ark. 104, 251 S.W.3d 290 (2007).

Scope of Review.

Were the Supreme Court of Arkansas to refuse to examine a claim that fundamental error is overlooked in a death case, where within the past eight years the Supreme Court of Arkansas has reversed a death sentence for an error in the jury verdict forms, in Willett v. State, the Court would not be fulfilling its obligation to complete a thorough state review under Arkansas rules and state law. Robbins v. State, 353 Ark. 556, 114 S.W.3d 217 (2003).

Cited: Lee v. State, 367 Ark. 84, 238 S.W.3d 52 (2006).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases, 1998–2016 · leading case: Echols v. State, 42 S.W.3d 467 (Ark. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Echols v. State, 42 S.W.3d 467 (Ark. 2001). · cites it 4× “5 evolved from Act 925 of 1997, now codified at Ark.Code Ann. §§ 16-91-201 to -206 (Supp.”

Lee v. State, 238 S.W.3d 52 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 4× “]” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-91-204 (Supp. 2005)..”

Jackson v. State, 37 S.W.3d 595 (Ark. 2001). · cites it 4× “3d 73 (citing Ark.Code Ann. § 16-91-204). We also noted our prior holding in Porter v.”

Hill v. State, 215 S.W.3d 589 (Ark. 2005). · cites it 8× “" Ark.Code Ann. § 16-91-204 (Supp.2005). Also in 1997, this court adopted Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.”

Sanders v. State, 98 S.W.3d 35 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 2× “See section 16-91-204; Porter v. State, 332 Ark.”

Dansby v. State, 65 S.W.3d 448 (Ark. 2002). · cites it 4× “Later, we noted the purpose behind Rule 37.5: Rule 37.5 evolved from Act 925 of 1997, now codified at Ark.”

Gibson v. Turpin, 513 S.E.2d 186 (Ga. 1999). · cites it 2× “, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-91-204 (1997) (legislative intent of statute requiring appointed counsel in capital post-conviction proceedings is to obtain expedited federal review under the AEDPA).”

Williams v. State, 251 S.W.3d 290 (Ark. 2007). “5, as well as its legislative counterpart, Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-91-204 (Repl. 2006), is an attempt to comply with the “opt-in provisions” of 28 U.”

Wooten v. State, 1 S.W.3d 8 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 2× “5 evolved from Act 925 of 1997, now codified at Ark.”

Porter v. State, 2 S.W.3d 73 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-91-204 (Supp. 1997). The purpose of a meaningful state review is to eliminate the need for multiple federal habeas corpus proceedings in death cases.”

Roberts v. State, 2016 Ark. 118 (Ark. 2016). · cites it 2× “See ’ section 16-91-204; Porter v. State, 332 Ark.”

Nance v. State, 4 S.W.3d 501 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-91-204 (Supp. 1997). The purpose of a meaningful state review is to eliminate the need for multiple federal habeas corpus proceedings in death cases.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.