Khabir v. State , 439 S.W.3d 679 ( 2014 )

Menu:

                                      Cite as

2014 Ark. 369

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.   CR-96-514
Opinion Delivered September 11, 2014
PRO SE MOTION FOR COPY OF
MALIK A. KHABIR, a/k/a LEROY                        BRIEF-IN-CHIEF AT PUBLIC
McCOY                                               EXPENSE [JACKSON COUNTY
PETITIONER                   CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 34CR-94-181]
V.
MOTION DENIED.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
RESPONDENT
PER CURIAM
In 1995, petitioner Malik A. Khabir, who is also known as Leroy McCoy, was found
guilty of delivery of a controlled substance and sentenced to 480 months’ imprisonment and a
$5000 fine. Because the offense was committed within 1000 feet of a park, the sentence was
enhanced pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-411(a) (Supp. 1995). We affirmed.
McCoy v. State,

326 Ark. 104

929 S.W.2d 712

(1996).
On July 15, 2014, petitioner filed the instant motion, seeking at public expense a copy
of the appellant’s brief-in-chief filed in the direct appeal of the judgment. Petitioner appended
his affidavit of indigency to the motion.
As grounds for the request for the copy, petitioner states that he is seeking to get his case
back before the courts with the assistance of a legal organization and that he is unable to pay the
photocopying fee for a copy of the brief. Petitioner has not stated good cause to grant the
motion.
Indigency alone does not entitle a petitioner to free copying of material on file with either
Cite as

2014 Ark. 369

of our appellate courts. See Williams v. State,

2014 Ark. 70

(per curiam); see also Mendiola v. State,

2013 Ark. 92

(per curiam); Daniels v. State,

2012 Ark. 124

(per curiam); Cox v. State,

2011 Ark. 96

(per curiam); Evans v. State,

2009 Ark. 529

(per curiam); Nooner v. State,

352 Ark. 481

101 S.W.3d 834

(2003) (per curiam). A petitioner seeking a copy of written material filed in the course of
the direct appeal of a judgment of conviction1 must show a compelling need for the copy to
support a specific allegation contained in a timely petition for postconviction relief. See Williams,

2014 Ark. 70

; see also Mendiola,

2013 Ark. 92

; Vance v. State,

2012 Ark. 254

(per curiam); Daniels,

2012 Ark. 124

; Henderson v. State,

2011 Ark. 522

(per curiam); Hickey v. State,

2010 Ark. 299

(per
curiam); Avery v. State,

2009 Ark. 528

(per curiam); Bradshaw v. State,

372 Ark. 305

275 S.W.3d 173

(2008) (per curiam).
Petitioner has not established that there is a postconviction remedy available to him at
this time in either state or federal court. See Ward v. State,

2013 Ark. 250

(per curiam).
Moreover, even if there is a remedy available, he has not demonstrated that there is any
particular issue that he cannot adequately raise to the court without access to the brief he seeks
to obtain. Accordingly, he has failed to show that he has a compelling need for the brief to
warrant providing it to him at public expense. Williams,

2014 Ark. 70

; see also Mendiola,

2013 Ark. 92

; see also Daniels,

2012 Ark. 124

; Hickey,

2010 Ark. 299

; Johnson v. State,

2010 Ark. 15

(per
curiam).
Motion denied.
Malik A. Khabir, pro se petitioner.
No response.
1
Post-appeal motions that seek a copy at public expense of material on file with either this
court or the Arkansas Court of Appeals are considered to be requests for postconviction relief.
Mendiola,

2013 Ark. 92