1 As noted in our prior decision, appellant did not invoke Act 1780, under which a
petitioner who asserts actual innocence may make a motion for scientific testing of evidence.
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 07-983
HAROLD EDWARD CHISM
Appellant
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
Opinion Delivered
February 14, 2008
PRO SE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL
OF APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY, CR 91-
413, HON. WILLIAM A. STOREY,
JUDGE]
MOTION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Harold Edward Chism, an inmate in custody of the Arkansas Department of
Correction in Jefferson County, filed a petition in Washington County Circuit Court seeking a writ
of habeas corpus, which the circuit court denied and dismissed. Appellant filed a motion in the circuit
court that sought reconsideration of the decision, whichwas also denied. Appellant lodged an appeal
of the two orders in this court, and we dismissed the appeal. Chism v. State, CR 07983 (Ark. Jan.
10, 2008) (per curiam). He now brings this motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the appeal.
Appellant first contends that he was convicted prior to enactment of Act 1780 of 2001, and,
because the “old law” in effect prior to Act 1780 was applicable, he should file his petition in the trial
court. 1 Yet, we dismissed the appeal on the basis of the same law as was in effect prior to Act 1780.
As our opinion noted, any petition for writ of habeas corpus to effect the release of a prisoner is
properly addressed to the circuit court in the county in which the prisoner is held in custody, unless
2
the petition is filed pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001. Lukach v. State, 369 Ark. 475, ___ S.W.3d ___
(2007) (per curiam). Under what appellant references as the “old law,” Ark. Code Ann. §
16112105 (1987), required, and still requires, that the writ be made returnable to the circuit court
of the county in which it may be served. Well prior to enactment of Act 1780, this court held that
a circuit court does not have j