Case Title: Beverly Maxwell v. State of Arkansas

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR05-421

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 2006-02-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 05-421 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION BEVERLY MAXWELL Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee Opinion Delivered February 23, 2006 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR 2002-1730, HON. CHRISTOPHER CHARLES PIAZZA, JUDGE AFFIRMED PER CURIAM Beverly Maxwell, following a bench trial, was found guilty of attempting to obtain prescription drugs by fraud and sentenced to sixty months' probation. Ms. Maxwell appealed the conviction and this court affirmed. Maxwell v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Nov. 4, 2004). Ms. Maxwell, through counsel, then filed a petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, which was denied. She now brings this appeal of that order. In its order denying postconviction relief, the trial court found that appellant Maxwell's petition was not timely and that she was not in custody, so as to be entitled to relief under a Rule 37.1 petition. In finding the petition was not timely, the trial court mistakenly applied the time limitation applicable to petitioners who were found guilty but did not appeal the judgment of conviction. Where an appeal is taken, under Ark. R. Crim. P.37.2(c), a petition for postconviction relief sought under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 must be filed within sixty days after the mandate is issued. Appellant's petition was timely. We do not reach the question of whether appellant was in custody, or appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, however, because appellant's petition was not verified so as to comply with the requirements of Rule 37.1. Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1(d) requires that the petition be verified. The petitioner's signature does not appear on the petition, nor does the petition provide any sworn statement as to the truthfulness of the facts in the petition, whether by the petitioner or otherwise. The petition is simply, and clearly, not in compliance with that requirement of the rule. The verification requirement for a postconviction relief petition is of substantive importance to prevent perjury. Carey v. State, 268 Ark. 332, 596 S.W.2d 688 (1980). As the State notes in its brief, we have recently confirmed that, in order to serve this purpose, a petitioner must execute the verification, and if the petitioner is represented by counsel, counsel may not sign and verify the petition for him. Boyle v. State, Ark. , S.W.3d (May 5, 2005) (per curiam). Appellant argues that our requirement of verification is unconstitutional to the extent it is jurisdictional. The requirement, however, is neither unconstitutional nor jurisdictional. There is no constitutional right to a postconviction proceeding. Robinson v. State, 295 Ark. 693, 751 S.W.2d 335 (1988). Where one is provided, due process requires that the proceeding be fundamentally fair. Id. at 699, 751 S.W.2d at 339. In Robinson, this court determined that a requirement that a petition must meet certain threshold requirements was fundamentally fair. We do not agree with appellant's assessment that our reasons for this particular requirement as set forth above are arbitrary and capricious. Moreover, a petition that is not verified may be filed with leave of the court, provided that the issue of the verification requirement has been presented to the trial court by way of a specific motion for leave. See Morris v. State, ___ Ark.___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Feb. 2, 2006), see also Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1(d). The requirement is not jurisdictional; however, it is apredicate requirement that must be met before the merits of the petition will be considered. Appellant also asserts that the verification requirement conflicts with Ark. R. Civ. P. 11. Yet, Rule 11 is a rule of civil procedure. This court has recognized that postconviction relief proceedings are civil in nature and applied the Rules of Appellate Procedure-Civil when necessary. Sanders v. State, 352 Ark. 16, 98 S.W.3d 35 (2003). We have not, however, applied the Rules of Civil Procedure to postconviction relief proceedings. Id.; McArty v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Jan. 5, 2006) (per curiam). We decline to do so now. Because appellant failed to meet the predicate requirements for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, the trial court did not err in denying appellant's petition. This court has consistently held that an appeal of the denial of postconviction relief will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Pardue v. State, 338 Ark. 606, 999 S.W.2d 198 (1999) (per curiam); 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). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of postconviction relief. Affirmed.