Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

Cite as 2009 Ark. 284 (unpublished) ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 08-1164 Opinion Delivered May 14, 2009 CHRISTOPHER LEE DUNN Appellant PRO SE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL OF APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF v. GRANT COUNTY, CR 98-10, HON. PHILLIP H. SHIRRON, JUDGE] STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee MOTION DENIED. PER CURIAM In 2008, appellant Christopher Lee Dunn filed a petition in the trial court for writ of habeas corpus under Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas, codified as Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 16-112-201 to -208 (Repl. 2006). In 1998, appellant had entered guilty pleas to charges of capital murder and attempted capital murder and received an aggregate sentence of life imprisonment without parole. The trial court dismissed the Act 1780 petition and this court dismissed the appeal. Dunn v. State, CR 08-1164 (Ark. Feb. 26, 2009) (per curiam). Appellant has now filed a motion in which he requests reconsideration of that decision. As he did in his petition under Act 1780, in his motion for reconsideration, appellant asserts that he was incompetent at the time of trial. He alleges that the judgment should be overturned on that basis, and now alleges that the incompetence continues because he was not treated for his condition. In the motion for reconsideration, he does not explain how the allegedly continuing incompetence contributed to the delay in bringing his petition for Act
Cite as 2009 Ark. 284 (unpublished) 1780 relief, or point to any basis in his petition for Act 1780 relief upon which the trial court could have found an allegation that the incompetence contributed to the delay. Appellants motion does not establish a basis to reconsider our holding that appellants petition for Act 1780 relief did not state grounds to overcome the presumption of untimeliness under section 16-112-202(10). Because appellant has provided no basis for reconsideration, we deny the motion. Motion denied. 2
 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.