ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 07746
LARRY WAYNE GOODNIGHT
Appellant
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
Opinion Delivered
January 10, 2008
PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF BENTON COUNTY, CR
2000839, HON. TOM J. KEITH,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM
In 2006, appellant Larry Wayne Goodnight, an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas
Department of Correction, filed in the trial court in which he had been convicted a pro se petition for
writ of habeas corpus under Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas, codified as Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16
112201 – 16112208 (Repl. 2006). The circuit court denied and dismissed the petition, and
appellant brings this appeal of that order. We affirm the decision to dismiss the petition as there was
no basis to issue the writ.
Appellant invoked Act 1780, but the petition that he filed did not present a claim cognizable
under that act. In his petition, appellant’s single claim alleged his sentence was illegal because the
trial court imposed probation following a termof incarceration. He did not include in the petition any
request for scientific testing, or allege scientific evidence would establish his actual innocence. Act
1780 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. See Graham
2
v. State, 358 Ark. 296, 188 S.W.3d 893 (2004) (per curiam) (decision under prior law); see alsoArk.
Code Ann. § 16112103(a) (Repl. 2006).
Act 1780 contains a number of predicate requirements to be met before a circuit court can
order any relief. Douthitt v. State, 366 Ark. 579, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2006) (per curiam). In particular,
section 16112202 provides for the form that a motion for relief under the act must follow, and, in
subsection (1), states that the motion must be for testing of specific evidence that was secured as a
result of the conviction challenged. As appellant failed to request testing, he failed to p