ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 08-01
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Opinion Delivered March 20, 2008
PRO SE MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT
RECORD [CIRCUIT COURT OF
FULTON COUNTY, CR 96-45, HON.
TIMOTHY M. WEAVER, JUDGE]
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE
RECORD GRANTED; APPEAL
In 1997, a jury found appellant Melvin Shoemate guilty of rape and sentenced him to 240
months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. This court denied appellant’s
motion for belated appeal. Shoemate v. State, 332 Ark. 435, 965 S.W.2d 779 (1998) (per curiam).
In 2006, appellant, through counsel, filed in the trial court a petition for writ of habeas corpus under
Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas, codified as Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-201–16-112-208 (Repl.
2006). The trial court denied the petition, and appellant, proceeding pro se, appeals that order in this
court. Appellant further brings this motion to supplement the record with an expanded record that
he has tendered. We grant the motion, but dismiss the appeal as it is clear that appellant cannot
In his motion, appellant notes that the record fails to contain a number of pertinent
documents. The tendered supplement includes an amendment to the petition in the trial court and
other pleadings not contained in the original record before us. Although not explicitly, the order
does appear to consider the petition, the amendment, and the other pleadings, and those documents
are therefore essential to any review of the order denying the petition. We accordingly grant the
motion, and our clerk is directed to file the supplement.
Both parties have filed briefs at this point, and having reviewed the supplement, it is clear
that appellant cannot prevail. This court has consistently held that an appeal of the denial of
postconviction relief will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not
prevail. Booth v. State, 353 Ark. 119, 110 S.W.3d 759 (2003) (per curiam).
In appellant’s pet