ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 05-736
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
NAKIA DAVIS
Appellant
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
Opinion Delivered May 11, 2006
PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, CR
93-541-5, HON. JOHN B. PLEGGE,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED
PER CURIAM
Nakia Davis was found guilty by a jury of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment
without the possibility of parole. We affirmed. Davis v. State, 320 Ark. 329, 896 S.W.2d 438
(1995). Subsequently, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition for postconviction relief
pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court denied the petition and appellant lodged an appeal
in this court from that order. We affirmed. Davis v. State, CR 96-111 (Ark. September 16, 1996)
(per curiam).
In 2004, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition to vacate and set aside the judgment
pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001, codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-201–207 (Supp. 2003). The
trial court denied the petition without a hearing, and appellant, proceeding pro se, has lodged this
appeal. We affirm the trial court’s order.
We do not reverse a denial of postconviction relief unless the trial court’s findings are clearly
erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Greene v. State, 356 Ark. 59, 146
-2-
S.W.3d 871 (2004). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it,
the appellate court after reviewing the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed. Flores v. State, 350 Ark. 198, 85 S.W.3d 896 (2002).
Initially, the State notes that appellant failed to include his notice of appeal and his Rule 37.1
petition in his addendum as required by Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8), but did abstract the petition and
other pleadings, contrary to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5). We will, however, not require appellant to
file a substituted brief to cure the deficiencies in conformance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b), as it is
clear on the recor