Fred L. WILLIAMS, Appellant
v.
STATE of Arkansas, Appellee
Page 149
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 150
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 151
PRO SE
APPEAL FROM THE DREW COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; MOTION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT AND FOR EXPEDIENT REVIEW OF APPEAL AND RELIEF OF
CUSTODY; AMENDMENT TO DEFAULT JUDGMENT MOTION AND MOTION FOR
EXPEDIENT REVIEW, DOUBLE JEOPARDY HELD; MOTION FOR SUBMISSION
OF APPELLANTS BELATED REPLY BRIEF [NO. 22CR-13-43],
HONORABLE SAM POPE, JUDGE
Fred
L. Williams, pro se appellant.
Leslie
Rutledge, Atty Gen., by: Kent Holt, Asst Atty Gen., for
appellee.
OPINION
JOHN
DAN KEMP, Chief Justice
Appellant Fred L. Williams brings this pro se appeal from the
denial by the trial court of his claims for postconviction
relief that were raised pursuant to Rule 37.1 (2016) of the
Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. Also pending before
this court are Williamss motion for default judgment, for
expedient review of appeal and relief of custody;
"amendment to default
Page 152
judgment motion and motion for expedient review, double
jeopardy held"; and his motion for submission of a
belated reply brief. Because Williams raised claims that are
not cognizable in Rule 37.1 proceedings and also failed to
establish prejudice as a basis to support his multiple
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, we affirm the trial
courts order, which renders Williamss motions moot.
Williams was found guilty of murder in the first degree and
abuse of a corpse for which an aggregate sentence of life
imprisonment was imposed. Williams was sentenced as a
habitual offender. We affirmed the conviction and the
sentence. Williams v. State, 2015 Ark. 316, 468
S.W.3d 776.
Williams
subsequently filed a timely petition for Rule 37.1 relief,
contending that his right to due process was violated as a
result of juror misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, and an
illegal search. Williams also raised multiple
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. Two hearings were
held on Williamss Rule 37.1 petition. The trial court denied
relief on the basis that Williams had failed to provide
sufficient supporting evidence to establish he had been
prejudiced under the standard set forth in St ...