Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carter v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

April 16, 2015

BRANDON CARTER, APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS, APPELLEE

Page 782

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 783

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 784

APPEAL FROM THE COLUMBIA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. NO. 14CR-06-64. HONORABLE LARRY CHANDLER, JUDGE.

Brandon Carter, Pro se appellant.

Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Rebecca Kane, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

OPINION

Page 785

PRO SE

JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Associate Justice.

In 2007, a jury found appellant, Brandon Carter, guilty of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of first-degree battery, and sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of 1200 months' imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict and sentence. Carter v. State, 2010 Ark.App. 611. Subsequently, Carter filed in the trial court a timely, verified pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2007), asserting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied Carter's petition. Carter then filed a motion for modification or reconsideration of the trial court's order, arguing that the trial court failed to provide the required rulings on each of the issues raised in the Rule 37.1 petition. Subsequently, Carter filed a timely notice of appeal of the order denying his petition. When the trial court did not rule on the motion, Carter filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he asked this court to compel the trial court to rule on the motion. Holding that the trial court failed to make the required rulings on each of the issues raised in the Rule 37.1 petition and that Carter properly filed a motion to obtain these rulings, this court granted the petition for writ of mandamus and directed the trial court to act on appellant's pending motion. Carter v. Chandler, 2012 Ark. 252 (per curiam). In its order denying the motion for modification or reconsideration, the trial court addressed Carter's claims that had not been addressed in the order denying postconviction relief. Carter has lodged this appeal; however, our review is limited to his appeal of the trial court's original order denying his petition.[1]

On appeal, Carter contends that the trial court erred in not granting his petition, arguing that counsel was remiss in failing to object when, two days before trial, the State filed a second amended information to add a count of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.