ARK.] 735
Judy Ellen LUNA-HOLBIRD v. STATE of Arkansas
CR 93-1239 871 S.W.2d 328 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered February 7, 1994 1. APPEAL & ERROR - UNANIMOUS OPINION OF COURT MAY BE RENDERED AS PER CURIAM OPINION AND NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. - A unanimous opinion of the Arkansas Supreme Court may be rendered as a Per Curiam opinion and not designated for publication at the discretion of the court; only the opinions of the court that are signed must be designated for publication. 2. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - HEARING NOT REQUIRED. - Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.3(a) provides that an evidentiary hearing is not required where the trial court can conclude from the files and records of the case that the petitioner is entitled to no relief; since appellant had not received the supreme court's permission to proceed under the rule in the trial court, the trial court did not err when it concluded that an evidentiary hearing was not required. Pro Se Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal of Appeal and Denial of Pro Se Motion to Supplement Record, Proceed on Handwritten Pleadings, and Join Jared Holbird on Appeal; Floyd G. Rogers, Judge; denied. Appellant, pro se. No response. PER CURIAM. In 1993 appellant Judy Luna-Holbird filed in the trial court a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37 which the trial court denied. After the record was lodged in this court on appeal, appellant sought to supplement the record, to join her son in the appeal, and to file handwritten pleadings. We denied the motions and dismissed the appeal because it was clear that appellant could not prevail on appeal because she had not sought this court's permission to file a petition pursuant to Rule 37 as required by the rule as it existed when she was convicted. Holbird v. State, CR 93-1239 (Decem-ber 13, 1993). Appellant now seeks reconsideration of that decision.
736 [315 [1] As grounds for reconsideration, appellant cites the fact that the opinion was a Per Curiam opinion not signed by the members of this court and not designated for publication and thus possibly a "falsified document." The ground is frivolous. An unanimous opinion of this court may be rendered as a Per Curiam opinion and not designated for publication at the discretion of the court. Only those opinions of this court which are signed must be designated for publication. Sup. Ct. R. 5-2 (a). [2] Appellant further argues that the trial court was obligated to hold an evidentiary hearing before denying relief. Rule 37.3 (a) provides that an evidentiary hearing is not required where the trial court can conclude from the files and records of the case that the petitioner is entitled to no relief. As appellant had not received this court's permission to proceed under the rule in the trial court, the trial court did not err when it concluded that an evidentiary hearing was not required. Motion denied.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.