Richard Williams v. Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION RICHARD WILLIAMS Appellant v. LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Appellee 06-334 Opinion Delivered June 22, 2006 PRO SE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL OF APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, CV 2005-893-5, HON. ROBERT H. WYATT, JR., JUDGE] MOTION DENIED PER CURIAM In 1998, appellant Richard Williams entered a plea of guilty to three counts of rape and one count of kidnapping. An aggregate term of 372 months’ imprisonment was imposed. The court also suspended imposition of an additional sentence of nine years’ imprisonment on the kidnapping charges. In 2005, appellant, an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction, filed in the county in which he was incarcerated a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. He argued that the sentences imposed for rape were illegal and sought to modify the sentence. The petition was denied with prejudice. Subsequently, appellant filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, a petition for reconsideration, and a second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. Both amended petitions and the petition for reconsideration were denied. Appellant, proceeding pro se, appealed to this court. We dismissed the appeal on the ground that appellant failed to make the requisite showing that the judgment of conviction was invalid on its face or that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction. Williams v. Norris, 06-334 (Ark. May 25, 2006) (per curiam). Now before us is appellant’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the appeal. Appellant asks that the dismissal be reconsidered because he tendered the appellant’s brief with the motion for reconsideration. Inasmuch as the appeal was dismissed because there was no merit to the petition for writ of habeas corpus and related pleadings and not because the brief had not been tendered, the motion is denied. Motion denied. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.