ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

January 29, 2004

PATRICK L. SHERMAN

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 96-183

PRO SE MOTION FOR PHOTOCOPY OF TRANSCRIPT AT PUBLIC EXPENSE [CIRCUIT COURT OF CLARK COUNTY, NO. CR 95-42]

MOTION DENIED

Per Curiam

In 1995, Patrick L. Sherman was found guilty by a jury of multiple felony offenses for which an aggregate term of forty years' imprisonment was imposed. We affirmed. Sherman v. State, 326 Ark. 153, 931 S.W.2d 417 (1996).

In 1996, Sherman filed in the trial court a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37.1. The petition was denied on the ground that it was not timely filed. No appeal was taken.

In 2001, Sherman filed a second petition under Rule 37.1, which was also denied. Sherman filed a timely notice of appeal but did not perfect the appeal.

In 2002, Sherman filed a third Rule 37.1 petition, which was denied by order entered October 22, 2002. We denied his motion for belated appeal. Sherman v. State, CR 03-533 (Ark. October 16, 2003) (per curiam).

Petitioner Sherman, who contends that he is indigent and invokes the Freedom of Information Act, now seeks at public expense a copy of the transcript lodged on appeal from the judgment of conviction entered in his case in 1995. As grounds for the request petitioner asserts that he needs the transcript to work on a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court "in connection with his criminal case."

The motion is denied. The Freedom of Information Act, codified as Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-101 et seq, does not require an appellate court to provide photocopying at public expense. See Moore v. State, 324 Ark. 453, 921 S.W.2d 606 (1996). A petitioner is not entitled to a free copy of material on file with this court unless he demonstrates some compelling need for specific documentary evidence to support an allegation contained in a petition for postconviction relief. See Austin v. State, 287 Ark. 256, 697 S.W.2d 914 (1985). Indigency alone does not entitle a petitioner to a free photocopying. Washington v. State, 270 Ark. 840, 606 S.W.2d 365 (1980). As the petitioner here was convicted more than eight years ago and has already proceeded under our postconviction rule, he has not shown that there is some state postconviction remedy available to him which requires that a copy of the material on file here be provided to him at public expense. As to petitioner's claim that the transcript is needed to proceed with a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, he has not shown that such a proceeding is in progress or available to him at this time.

It should be noted that when an appeal has been lodged here, the transcript remains permanently on file with the clerk. Persons may review a transcript in the clerk's office and photocopy all or portions of it. An incarcerated person desiring a photocopy of a transcript 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. Moore, supra.

Motion denied.