Case Title: Gregory Martin v. State of Arkansas

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR99-828

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 2001-05-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION PER CURIAM May 17, 2001 GREGORY MARTIN Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee CR 99-828 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARKANSAS COUNTY, NO. CR-96-20, HONORABLE F. RUSSELL ROGERS, JUDGE AFFIRMED In 1997, appellant was convicted by a jury in the Arkansas County Circuit Court of first-degree murder. He received a sentence of thirty-nine years' imprisonment. On direct appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence. Martin v. State, CA CR 97-1128 (Ark. App. May 19, 1998). Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Cr. P. 37 that raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied the petition as untimely. Appellant contends that the circuit court erred in concluding that his petition was not timely filed. We decline to reach the merits of the appellant's argument because he has failed to produce a record on appeal sufficient to demonstrate error. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(6) requires an appellant to include an abstract of the record consisting of the material parts of the record that are necessary to an understanding of the questions presented for decision. The abstracting requirement applies to those appellants who proceed pro se. Jackson v. State, 316 Ark. 509, 510, 872 S.W.2d 400, 400 (1994). It is the appellant's burden to produce a record sufficient to demonstrate error, and the record on appeal isconfined to that which is abstracted. Johnson v. State, 342 Ark. 357, 361, 28 S.W.3d 286, 288 (2000). We have noted that with only one record on appeal and seven justices, it is essential that the material parts of the record be abstracted. Id. We will not explore the record for prejudicial error. Owens v. State, 325 Ark. 93, 94, 924 S.W.2d 459, 459 (1996). If an appellate court affirms a judgment of conviction, a petition claiming relief under Ark. R. Cr. P. 37 must be filed within sixty days of the date the mandate was issued by the appellate court. Ark. R. Cr. P. 37.2(c). A circuit court does not reacquire jurisdiction over a criminal case until the Office of the Clerk issues the mandate. The time limitations imposed are jurisdictional in nature, and a circuit court cannot grant relief on an untimely petition. Benton v. State, 325 Ark. 246, 925 S.W.2d 401 (1996); Hamilton v. State, 323 Ark. 614, 918 S.W.2d 113 (1996); Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994). Here, we cannot determine the timeliness of appellant's petition because he has failed to abstract the appellate court's mandate, or any record reflecting the date it issued. Thus, we are unable to discern whether appellant's petition was untimely filed before the mandate issued, was timely filed after the mandate issued, or was untimely filed beyond the sixty-day filing period. It is incumbent on appellant to determine when the mandate was issued just as it is incumbent on a convicted defendant to determine when the judgment is entered before filing a notice of appeal. O'Brien v. State, 339 Ark. 138, 140, 3 S.W.3d 332, 333 (1999). Accordingly, appellant's failure to abstract a critical document precludes this Court from considering issues concerning it. Watson v. State, 329 Ark. 511, 512, 951 S.W.2d 304, 305 (1997). Affirmed.