ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

JUNE 26, 2003

ALFREDO TREJO MUNOZ

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 02-1358

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, CR 98-1163, HONORABLE WILLIAM A. STOREY, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant is serving a sentence of twenty years' imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction for committing the rape of a three-year-old child. See Munoz v. State, 340 Ark. 218, 9 S.W.3d 497 (2000). Now before us is his appeal of the denial of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus on a claim of actual innocence pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001, codified as Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201 to -207 (Supp. 2001). The trial court denied the petition without a hearing. We affirm.

Act 1780 was passed by the General Assembly in response to nation-wide concerns that innocent persons were being imprisoned and even executed for crimes that they did not commit. Echols v. State, 350 Ark. 42, 44, 84 S.W.3d 424, 426 (2002) (per curiam). The act provides that a writ of habeas corpus could issue based upon new scientific evidence proving a person is actually innocent of the offense or offenses for which they were convicted. See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-103(a)(1), and 16-12-201 to -207.

Appellant sought in his petition DNA testing to demonstrate his actual innocence. A number of predicate requirements must be met under Act 1780. See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-201 to -203. Of importance here is the requirement that a petitioner is not entitled to DNA testing unless he demonstrates that the testing is to be performed on evidence secured in relation to the trial, and that the evidence was not subject to the testing sought because either the technology for the testing was not available at the time of trial or the testing was not available as evidence at the time of the trial. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-202(a)(1)(A)-(B). Appellant cannot meet this requirement because not only was DNA testing available at the time of his trial, a DNA analysis of appellant's semen taken from his victim's panties, her rectal swab, and his fluid samples was presented as evidence against him at trial. See Munoz, 340 Ark. at 221, 9 S.W.3d 499. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied appellant's petition.

Affirmed.

Corbin, J., not participating.