Rodney Williams v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT  No.  CR 07­559  Opinion Delivered  RODNEY WILLIAMS  Appellant  v.  STATE OF ARKANSAS  Appellee  December 13, 2007  PRO SE MOTION FOR  RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL  OF APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF  PULASKI COUNTY, CR 82­834, HON.  JOHN LANGSTON, JUDGE]  MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION  DENIED.  PER CURIAM  In 1983, appellant Rodney Williams, who is also known as Rodney Dewayne Williams, was  convicted by a jury of first­degree murder and aggravated robbery.  He was sentenced by the jury as  a habitual offender to life imprisonment for each count, and the life sentence for robbery was merged  with the life sentence for first­degree murder by the trial court.  We affirmed.  Williams v. State, 281  Ark. 91, 663 S.W.2d 700 (1984), cert. den., 469 U.S. 980 (1984).  In  2006,  appellant  filed  in  the  trial court  a  pro  se  petition  to  correct  an  illegal sentence  pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §16­90­111 (1987).  Appellant appealed the trial court’s denial of the  petition, and we dismissed the appeal.  Williams v.  State, CR 07­559 (Ark. Oct. 11, 2007) (per  curiam).  Now before us is appellant’s pro se motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the appeal.  Appellant reiterates the grounds advanced in the original petition filed in the trial court and re­asserts  that  he was improperly sentenced as a habitual offender.  In dismissing the appeal,  we  held that  appellant was unable to show that the judgment was illegal on its face, as required by the statute and previously decided by this court in a prior petition requesting the same relief under section 16­90­111.  Williams v. State, CR 97­361 (Ark. Apr. 16, 1998) (per curiam).  Appellant has failed to meet his  burden of demonstrating that there was some error of fact or law in the decision that would merit  reconsideration of the dismissal of the appeal.  Motion for reconsideration 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.