Case Title: Robert Edward Preston v. State of Arkansas

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

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

Document:
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 05-166 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION ROBERT EDWARD PRESTON Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent Opinion Delivered April 7, 2005 PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL OF ORDER [CIRCUIT COURT OF BRADLEY COUNTY, CR 2001-14-2, HON. ROBERT C. VITTITOW, JUDGE] MOTION DENIED PER CURIAM March 4, 2002, judgment was entered reflecting that Robert Edward Preston had been found guilty by a jury of robbery, battery in the second degree, and arson in CR 2001-14-2. An aggregate sentence of 552 months' imprisonment was imposed. The court of appeals affirmed. Preston v. State, CACR 02-882 (Ark. App. April 23, 2003). The court of appeals' mandate was issued on May 13, 2003. On July 21, 2003, Preston filed in the trial court a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37.1 challenging the judgment. The petition was dismissed on August 20, 2003, on the ground that it was not timely filed.1 Petitioner did not file a timely notice of appeal from the order, and he now seeks leave to proceed with a belated appeal pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 2(e). We need not consider petitioner's reasons for failing to perfect an appeal because it is clear from the record that the trial court did not err when it ruled that the petition was untimely. This court has consistently held that a postconviction matter will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the petitioner could not prevail. Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996) (per curiam); Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994) (per curiam); Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 376 (1994) (per curiam); Chambers v. State, 304 Ark. 663, 803 S.W.2d 932 (1991) (per curiam); Johnson v. State, 303 Ark. 560, 798 S.W.2d 108 (1990) (per curiam); Williams v. State, 293 Ark. 73, 732 S.W.2d 456 (1987) (per curiam). Criminal Procedure Rule 37.2(c) provides in pertinent part that a petition attacking a judgment is untimely if not filed within sixty days of the issuance of the mandate following affirmance of the direct appeal of the judgment. The petition under Criminal Procedure Rule 37.1 in petitioner's case was filed sixty-eight days after the mandate was issued. As the time limitations imposed in Criminal Procedure Rule 37 are jurisdictional in nature, the circuit court could not grant relief on an untimely petition and petitioner was thus procedural barred from proceeding under the rule. Maxwell v. State, 298 Ark. 329, 767 S.W.2d 303 (1989). Motion denied. 1 The order dismissing the petition bears the circuit court number CR 2001-35-2 as well as the docket number CR 2001-14-2. The charges in CR 2001-35-2 were dismissed in an order entered June 27, 2002; the Rule 37.1 petition was filed in CR 2001-14-2 only.