From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Griswold v. Lockhart

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Feb 3, 1992
822 S.W.2d 388 (Ark. 1992)

Opinion

No. 91-342

Opinion delivered February 3, 1992

APPEAL ERROR — MOTION TO FILE HANDWRITTEN BRIEF — FAILURE TO MAKE SHOWING THAT APPEAL HAS SUBSTANTIVE MERIT. — Where appellant appealed the denial of a petition for habeas corpus based on allegations that appellant was charged by information rather than indictment and that he was never afforded a "first appearance" before being bound over to circuit court, his motion to file a handwritten brief was denied because he failed to make a substantial showing of merit since the issues raised were not cognizable by habeas corpus.

Motion to File Handwritten Brief; denied.

Appellant, pro se.

Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Asst. Att'y Gen., for appellee.


Appellant seeks permission to file a handwritten brief which we will entertain upon a substantial showing of merit. Patterson v. State, 289 Ark. 564, 712 S.W.2d 922 (1986). This is an appeal from a denial of a petition for habeas corpus based on allegations that appellant was charged by information rather than indictment and that he was never afforded a "first appearance" before being bound over to circuit court. However, these are not matters cognizable by habeas corpus and, accordingly, appellant has failed to make a substantial showing of merit. Motion denied.


Summaries of

Griswold v. Lockhart

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Feb 3, 1992
822 S.W.2d 388 (Ark. 1992)
Case details for

Griswold v. Lockhart

Case Details

Full title:Thomas GRISWOLD v. A.L. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of…

Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas

Date published: Feb 3, 1992

Citations

822 S.W.2d 388 (Ark. 1992)
822 S.W.2d 388

Citing Cases

McConaughy v. Lockhart

We have repeatedly held that an information is a valid charging instrument, see, e.g., Hamm v. State, 296…