Demeyer v. State

Cite as 2016 Ark. 9
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
No. CR-15-534
Opinion Delivered January 14, 2016
KIRK H. DEMEYER
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE BAXTER COUNTY
V. CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 03CR-09-99]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE HONORABLE JOHN R. PUTMAN,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM
In 2009, appellant Kirk H. Demeyer entered a negotiated plea of guilty to rape and
was sentenced to a term of 480 months’ imprisonment. On February 10, 2015, Demeyer
filed in the trial court a pro se motion seeking a copy at public expense of “all transcripts
from the first appearance to the last hearing (error coram nobis hearing); also the hearing or
appearances for my criminal charges.” He stated, without further explanation, that the
material was needed to allow him to “amend his petition for postconviction relief.” The
trial court denied the motion, and Demeyer brings this appeal. Because the trial court did
not err in denying the relief sought, the order is affirmed.
It is well settled that indigency alone does not require a trial court to provide a
petitioner with free photocopying. McDaniel v. State, 2015 Ark. 229, at 3 (per curiam);
Henderson v. State, 287 Ark. 346, 347, 699 S.W.2d 397, 398 (1985). To be entitled to a
copy of a transcript or other written material at public expense, a convicted defendant must
demonstrate to the court a compelling need for the transcript or other material to support a
Cite as 2016 Ark. 9
specific allegation contained in a timely petition for postconviction relief. Williamson v.
State, 2015 Ark. 85, at 2 (per curiam). Unless a petitioner identifies some postconviction
remedy that is currently available to him and for which he needs the requested materials to
proceed, he has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a compelling need. Wade v.
State, 2014 Ark. 492, at 4 (per curiam).
Here, Demeyer made no showing in his motion that there was a particular
postconviction remedy available to him, and he failed to demonstrate that there was a
compelling need for the material he requested. In the section of his motion that instructs
him to list the reasons for the materials, he merely stated the materials he was requesting
without providing any reason for them. Accordingly, there was no ground on which the
trial court could properly grant the motion.
Affirmed.
Kirk H. Demeyer, pro se appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Kristen C. Green, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
2