Case Title: Stephen Ray Abshure v. State of Arkansas

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR03-465

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 2004-03-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION March 4, 2004 STEPHEN RAY ABSHURE Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee CR 03-465 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LONOKE COUNTY, CR 00-165, HONORABLE LANCE LAMAR HANSHAW, JUDGE AFFIRMED Per Curiam A jury convicted appellant of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, and possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, and imposed consecutive sentences of ten, ten, and five years' imprisonment, respectively. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Abshure v. State, 79 Ark. App. 317, 87 S.W.3d 822 (2002). We denied review. Abshure v. State, CR 02-1213, slip op. (Ark. Dec. 19, 2002) (unpublished). Appellant then filed pro se a sixteen page petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Cr. P. 37 along with a motion seeking leave to enlarge the petition. Appellant's petition was filed without verification. The State objected to the unverified and overlong petition in its response. Appellant later attempted to verify his petition by affidavit. The circuit court dismissed the petition for a failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 37.1(d) and (e). Appellant now appeals the dismissal of his petition. Rule 37.1(d) (2003) requires that a party seeking to attack a sentence must file a verified petition in the court which imposed the sentence. See also Worthem v. State, 347 Ark. 809, 810, 66 S.W.3d 665, 666 (2002) (per curiam), reh'g denied, CR 01-1207, slip op. (Ark. Apr. 11, 2002) (unpublished). This court has recognized the verification requirement as one of substantive importance to prevent perjury. Id. (citing Carey v. State, 268 Ark. 332, 333, 596 S.W.2d 688, 689 (1987)). Under Rule 37.1(e), petitions for postconviction relief shall not exceed ten pages in length. This court has held that limiting Rule 37 petitions to ten pages in length is an entirely reasonable restriction on petitioners seeking postconviction relief and does not violate their due process rights. Rowbottom v. State, 341 Ark. 33, 35-36, 13 S.W.3d 904, 905-06 (2000). Exhibits to a Rule 37 petition are considered a part of the petition for the purposes of determining whether the petition conforms to the ten-page limitation. Washington v. State, 308 Ark. 322, 323, 823 S.W.2d 900, 901 (1992). Petitions not in compliance will not be filed without leave of the court. Ark. R. Cr. P. 37.1(e). Appellant fails to present us with any cogent reason for why the circuit court erred in dismissing his petition. See Rowbottom, supra. He contends that the exhibits which made his petition overlong were fundamental to his constitutional claims, and he suggests that the circuit court should have issued a ruling on his motion to enlarge his petition. He notes that he later filed an affidavit attempting to verify his petition. Appellant also presents claims raised in his Rule 37 petition but not ruled upon by the circuit court in dismissing the petition. It was appellant's duty to obtain rulings on his motion and claims, and this court will not consider a claim that a circuit court did not rule upon. E.g. Beshears v. State, 340 Ark. 70, 8 S.W.3d 32 (2000). The petition filed by appellant failed to meet the requirements of Rule 37, and therefore, it was invalid. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's order. Affirmed.