ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

JANUARY 10, 2002

CHAD HILDERBRAND

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 01-1130

PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF AND PRO SE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO COMPLETE THE RECORD [CIRCUIT COURT OF POPE COUNTY, NO. CR 94-58 and CR 96-313, HON. JOHN S. PATTERSON, JUDGE]

MOTION AND PETITION MOOT; APPEAL DISMISSED

On March 23, 1998, Chad Hilderbrand entered a plea of nolo contendere to violating the terms of probation imposed on him as the result of a 1994 conviction for the offense of sexual abuse in the first degree in CR 94-58. He was sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment. He further entered a plea of nolo contendere to sexual abuse in the first degree in CR 96-313 and was sentenced to an additional 120 months' imprisonment. The court ordered that three years of the sentence in CR 96-313 was to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed in CR 94-58 with the remainder to be served concurrently.

Hilderbrand subsequently filed in the trial court a timely pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37 seeking to vacate the judgments. The petition was denied, and Hilderbrand appealed to this court. Although appellant Hilderbrand was granted two extensions of time to file the appellant's brief, the brief was not timely filed and on January6, 2000, we granted the State's motion to dismiss the appeal.

On February 14, 2001, Hilderbrand filed in the trial court a motion seeking at public expense a copy of the transcript of his revocation hearing on the ground that he desired to use it to prepare a petition for writ of habeas corpus for filing in this court. On March 16, 2001, he filed an amended motion, clarifying that he needed the transcript and a copy of the docket sheets from his cases to file a habeas action in the circuit court in the county in which he was incarcerated. The court denied the motion and amended motion except for directing that the clerk provide Hilderbrand with a copy of the docket sheets. Hilderbrand has lodged here an appeal of the denial of his request for a copy of the revocation transcript. He now asks that a writ of certiorari be issued to complete the record lodged on appeal and that an extension of time to file his brief be granted.

We declare the motion and petition moot and dismiss the appeal because the motion and amended motion filed in the trial court were clearly without merit. This court has consistently held that an appeal of the denial of postconviction relief will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996); Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994); Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 376 (1994); see Chambers v. State, 304 Ark. 663, 803 S.W.2d 932 (1991); Johnson v. State, 303 Ark. 560, 798 S.W.2d 108 (1990); Williams v. State, 293 Ark. 73, 732 S.W.2d 456 (1987).

A petitioner is not entitled to photocopying at public expense unless he or she demonstrates some compelling need for specific documentary evidence to support an allegation contained in a petition for postconviction relief. Moore v. State, 324 Ark. 453, 921 S.W.2d 606(1996); Brooks v. State, 303 Ark.188, 792 S.W.2d 617 (1990); see Austin v. State, 287 Ark. 256, 697

S.W.2d 914 (1985). Mr. Hilderbrand's request for a copy of the transcript of the revocation hearing to file a habeas action was not supported by any showing that there was some ground for such a proceeding which could not be presented to the court without access to the hearing transcript. His assertion of indigency alone did not entitle him to photocopying at public expense. Washington v. State, 270 Ark. 840, 606 S.W.2d 365 (1980). Under these circumstances, the trial court did not err in declining to provide appellant with a copy of the hearing transcript at public expense.

Motion and petition moot; appeal dismissed.

Imber, J., not participating.