ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 07527
STATE OF ARKANSAS
December 13, 2007
PRO SE MOTION TO FILE REPLY
BRIEF AND SUPPLEMENTAL
ADDENDUM [CIRCUIT COURT OF
INDEPENDENCE COUNTY, CR 9558,
HON. JOHN DAN KEMP, JUDGE]
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT
In 1995, appellant Ralph Douthitt was convicted by a jury of multiple counts of felony rape,
incest and violation of a minor and sentenced to 174 years’ imprisonment. We affirmed. Douthitt
v. State, 326 Ark. 794, 935 S.W.2d 241 (1996).
In 2006, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001, as
amended by Act 2250 of 2005 and codified as Ark. Code Ann. §§16112201–16112208 (Repl.
2006). The act provides that a writ of habeas corpus can issue based upon new scientific evidence
proving a person actually innocent of the offense or offenses for which he or she was convicted. The
trial court denied the petition and this court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was clearly
without merit. Douthitt v. State, 366 Ark. 579, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2007) (per curiam).
In 2007, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se “second or successive petition to vacate
and/or set aside judgment” pursuant to Act 1780. The trial court denied the petition without a
hearing, and appellant has lodged an appeal here from the order.
Now before us is appellant’s pro se motion to file a reply brief and supplemental addendum.
We need not consider the motion as it is apparent that appellant could not prevail in this appeal if it
were permitted to go forward. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and hold the motion moot. An
appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief will not be permitted to go
forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Pardue v. State, 338 Ark. 606, 999
S.W.2d 198 (1999) (per curiam); Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996) (per curiam).
Act 1780 involves scientific testing of evidence