Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. 188 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-26-347 Opinion Delivered: November 12, 2026 KEVIN DIXON APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE MILLER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 46CR-09-392] STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE L. WREN AUTREY, APPELLEE JUDGE AFFIRMED. CORY COX, Special Justice Appellant Kevin Dixon appeals the denial of his pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001 as amended by Act 2250 of 2005, codified at Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16-112-201 to -208 (Repl. 2016). In his petition, Dixon sought new DNA testing of various items of evidence, contending the method of testing sought would prove his actual innocence. The trial court denied the petition, finding that the items designated for testing did not produce any DNA evidence, nor would testing of the proposed evidence provide additional information of significant consequence in a matter that relied on no DNA evidence produced at trial. Dixon v. State, 2011 Ark. 450, 385 S.W.3d 164. We affirm. Dixon argues on appeal that he made clear in his petition for forensic testing that the requested method, M-VAC testing, would show that his DNA is not present on any of the evidence presented to the jury, including the .22-caliber pistol recovered from a lake, a used shell casing found near the victim’s body, and currency taken from his possession when he was arrested—items not previously tested—but could identify the real culprit. Dixon also contends that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Act 1780 of 2001 provides that a writ of habeas corpus may be issued upon the discovery of new scientific evidence proving a person actually innocent of the offense for which he or she was convicted. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-201; Marshall v. State, 2017 Ark. 208, 521 S.W.3d 456. Under section 16-112-202(10)(B), there is a rebuttable presumption that a petition filed more than thirty-six months after the entry of judgment is untimely. To rebut this presumption, a petitioner must establish one of the following: (1) the petitioner was or is incompetent, and the incompetence substantially contributed to the delay; (2) there is newly discovered evidence; (3) the motion is more than an assertion of innocence, and a denial of the motion would cause a manifest injustice; (4) new technology exists that is substantially more probative than the prior testing; or (5) other good cause. Hooper v. State, 2021 Ark. 110, 622 S.W.3d 641. Although the trial court did not address the timeliness of Dixon’s petition, the first prerequisite for establishing a prima facie claim under Act 1780 is to identify evidence or scientific methods of testing that were not available at the time of trial or could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence. Ark. Code Ann. § 16- 112-201(a)(1)(2); McLaughlin v. State, 2021 Ark. 216. Dixon not only failed to file his petition within thirty-six months from the date of his conviction but also failed to make claims regarding either scientific testing or newly discovered evidence that was not available 2 at the time of trial or that could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. See McArty v. State, 2020 Ark. 68, 594 S.W.3d 54. Dixon’s petition and argument on appeal contain nothing more than his own assertions of innocence and fail to show that newly discovered evidence, manifest injustice, or good cause prevented Dixon from filing his petition within the thirty-six-month time limitation. Affirmed. WEBB, J., not participating Kevin Dixon, pro se appellant. Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen.; by: Jacob Jones, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 3