Case Title: Meredith Bennett v. State of Arkansas

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR03-690

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 2005-04-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 03-690 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION MEREDITH BENNETT APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered April 7, 2005 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SEBASTIAN COUNTY, FORT SMITH DISTRICT, HONORABLE JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI, JUDGE, CR 2001-996,CR 2002-177, TREATED AS PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI PETITION DISMISSED. PER CURIAM Meredith Bennett was charged by information with conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree in Sebastian County Circuit Court on October 30, 2001. An amended information was filed February 22, 2002, charging Bennett with solicitation of murder in the first degree. Later the same day, it appears another information was filed charging Bennett with two counts of solicitation to commit murder in the first degree and retaliation against a witness. Bennett pled guilty in Sebastian County Court, with a judgment and commitment order filed on August 20, 2002, sentencing her to eight years' imprisonment followed by 12 years' suspended sentence on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently. An amended judgment and commitment order was filed September 18, 2002, reflecting the same sentences for one count of conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree and one count of solicitation to commit murder in the first degree. On October 2, 2002, Bennett appeared before the trial court in a hearing at which Bennett was allowed to withdraw her pleas in connection with an apparent misunderstanding over the terms of her original pleas. Bennett again entered guilty pleas, and was sentenced to four years' commitment in the Arkansas Department of Correction followed by sixteen years suspended sentence on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently. That judgment and order of commitment was filed on October 9, 2002. The trial court treated a letter from Bennett as a motion to withdraw her plea, and held a hearing on that motion on November 8, 2002. The motion was denied. On December 5, 2002, an order was entered in Sebastian County Circuit Court allowing Bennett to proceed in forma pauperis and appointing counsel to represent Bennett in a proceeding under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 for postconviction relief. A pro se petition and a number of motions follow that order in the record, but are not file marked. An amended petition by appointed counsel appears in the record with a date stamp of February 3, 2003 from the circuit clerk. The trial court held a hearing on the petition on February 20, 2003, and entered an order that day denying Bennett postconviction relief. This appeal followed. The State filed a motion to dismiss after appellant was released from incarceration August 26, 2003. In its motion, the State acknowledged the court could elect to treat the appeal as a request for writ of certiorari as to appellant's first point of error. In response to that motion, this court entered an order to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari on April 1, 2004. This court has discretion to treat an appeal from an order, judgment or decree which lacks judicial support as if it were brought up on certiorari. State v. Dawson, 343 Ark. 683, 38 S.W.3d 319 (2001). However, we now decline to exercise that authority, and dismiss the petition. As the State correctly asserts, appellant's postconviction relief petition was not timely filed. Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c) requires a petition for postconviction relief following a guilty plea to be filed within ninety days of the date of entry of judgment. Appellant's pro se petition was not filed with the circuit clerk. Appellant may have mailed the petition directly to the circuit judge, since it seems to have been forwarded to her appointed counsel. But the petition does not bear a date stamp showing it was ever filed with the clerk. Her appointed counsel's amended petition was filed more than ninety days after October 9, 2002, the date of the judgment and commitment order. This court has previously held that delivering a petition to the circuit judge is not the equivalent of filing the item with the clerk for purposes of determining whether it is timely filed. Benton v. State, 325 Ark. 246, 925 S.W.2d 401 (1996). Accordingly, we decline to review appellant's petition, having determined her appeal was not properly before us. Petition dismissed.