SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-09-519
Opinion Delivered February 26, 2015
RAMON WILLIAMSON
PETITIONER PRO SE MOTION FOR COPIES AT
PUBLIC EXPENSE
V. [PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. 60CR-06-2169]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
RESPONDENT MOTION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
In 2008, judgment was entered reflecting that petitioner Ramon Williamson had been
found guilty by a jury of capital murder for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment without
parole. This court affirmed. Williamson v. State,
.
On December 29, 2014, petitioner filed the instant pro se motion seeking a copy at public
expense of the date on which this court decided the appeal and a copy of this court’s decision
and all other written material from the appeal. Petitioner has appended his affidavit of indigency
to the motion.
The judgment was affirmed by this court on November 12, 2009. With respect to the
request for copies of the decision and other written material from the direct appeal, petitioner
has not stated good cause to provide copies at public expense. There is no statement of the
nature of any legal proceedings in the case or why the documents are needed to proceed in the
case. No issues that petitioner intends to raise in state or federal court are identified. There is
also no statement as to whether a postconviction remedy is available to petitioner at this time
in any court.
Cite as
We have consistently held that indigency alone does not entitle a petitioner to free
copying of any material on file with either this court or the Arkansas Court of Appeals. Wade
v. State,
(per curiam). A petitioner seeking a copy of written material on file with
an Arkansas appellate court must show a compelling need for the copy to support a specific
allegation contained in a timely petition for postconviction relief.
Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is any particular issue that he cannot
adequately raise to a particular court without access to the written material he seeks.
Furthermore, he has not demonstrated that there is a postconviction remedy open to him at this
time. See Khabir v. State,
(per curiam)). Accordingly, he has failed to show that he has a compelling need for any
material on file with this court’s clerk to warrant providing him with copies at public expense.1
Williams v. State,
(per curiam).
Motion denied.
Ramon Williamson, pro se petitioner.
No response.
1
It should be noted that when an appeal has been lodged in the appellate courts, the
appeal record and other material pertaining to the appeal remain permanently on file with the
clerk. Persons may review a record or other material in the clerk’s office and photocopy all or
portions of it. An incarcerated person desiring a photocopy of a record or other material on file
here may write this court, remit the photocopying fee, and request that the copy be mailed to
the prison. All persons, including prisoners, must bear the cost of photocopying, absent a
compelling need. Austin v. State,
