Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. 154 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-26-280 Opinion Delivered: October 15, 2026 ANDREW ROSS, JR. APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE MISSISSIPPI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CHICKASAWBA DISTRICT V. [NO. 47BCR-99-334] STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE KIMBERLY BOLING APPELLEE BIBB, JUDGE AFFIRMED. NICHOLAS J. BRONNI, Associate Justice Appellant Andrew Ross, Jr., appeals the denial of his Act 1780 petition seeking scientific testing. He claims that decades after he murdered Robert Branscum, additional scientific testing on certain articles of clothing will somehow undermine his conviction. The circuit court rejected that claim, and we affirm. 1. Ross is a capital murderer. In September 1999, Ross and a friend killed Branscum during an attempted robbery in Blytheville, Arkansas. Ross never denied being present for the murder. On the contrary, he admitted “that he had been shot in the groin by the victim.” Ross v. State, 346 Ark. 225, 229, 57 S.W.3d 152, 155 (2001). Moreover, multiple items of clothing connected to the murder—including bloody pants, a ski mask, and a t-shirt with firearm residue—were discovered in Ross’s possession. Ultimately, the jury rejected Ross’s varying accounts of why he was at the scene of the murder, convicted him of capital murder, and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. This court affirmed both his conviction and his sentence. See id. Now, decades later, Ross claims that additional scientific testing could undermine his conviction. In particular, he argues that “[DNA] testing, hair comparison test[ing], or other tests” on the ski mask and t-shirt found in his possession will demonstrate those items really belonged to his friend and corroborate his evolving claim that he just happened to be at the scene of the murder. He also seeks to test jeans that belonged to his friend, though he does not explain why. The circuit court denied his request, and Ross appeals. 2. Ross’s claim is frivolous, and the circuit court correctly rejected it. To prevail on his petition, Ross must demonstrate, among many other things, that the identity of a perpetrator “was at issue during the investigation or prosecution of the offense being challenged.” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-202(7) (Repl. 2016). He makes no such showing. Instead, he disputes the degree of his involvement in the crime. Yet the testing he seeks would tell us nothing about his degree of involvement. Far from it, testing could only show that Ross’s friend—who no one disputes participated in the murder—touched or wore the ski mask and t-shirt found in Ross’s possession. That says nothing about whether Ross also participated in the murder. See Johnson v. State, 2019 Ark. 391, at 12, 591 S.W.3d 265, 271 (holding that the mere presence of someone else’s DNA at the scene does not significantly advance a claim of innocence and meet Act 1780’s demanding requirements). Ross’s petition thus fails. Affirmed. Special Justice CORY COX joins. WEBB, J., not participating. Andrew Ross, Jr., pro se appellant. Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: A. Evangeline Bacon, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 2