Case Title: Larry E. Niblett v. State of Arkansas

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR07-420

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 2007-06-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 07-420 LARRY E. NIBLETT Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee Opinion Delivered June 14, 2007 PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF SCOTT COUNTY, CR 2004-58, HON. D. FRANKLIN AREY, JUDGE] APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT. PER CURIAM In 2005, appellant Larry E. Niblett was found guilty by a jury of manufacturing a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. An aggregate sentence of 480 months’ imprisonment was imposed. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Niblett v. State, CACR 06-17 (Ark. App. Aug. 30, 2006). Appellant filed a petition for review, which this court denied. Niblett v. State, CR 06-1041 (Ark. Oct. 12, 2006) (per curiam order). The final mandate in the case was issued on October 12, 2006. On December 13, 2006, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, seeking to vacate the judgment. The petition was dismissed on the ground that it was not timely filed, and appellant has lodged an appeal from that order in this court. He now seeks an extension of time to file the appellant’s brief. As we find that appellant could not be successful on appeal, the appeal is dismissed. The motion for extension of time is moot. This court has consistently held that an appeal from the denial of -2- 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). Pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c ), petitions under Rule 37.1 must be filed in the trial court within sixty days of the date the appellate court mandate was issued. The time limits set out in Rule 37.2(c) are jurisdictional in nature, and the circuit court may not grant relief on an untimely petition. Maxwell v. State, 298 Ark. 329, 767 S.W.2d 303 (1989). Appellant filed his petition in the trial court sixty-two days after the mandate in his case was issued. Accordingly, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to address the allegations contained in the petition, and the court did not err in dismissing the petition on that basis. Shoemate v. State, 339 Ark. 403, 407 S.W.3d 446 (1999) (per curiam). Appeal dismissed; motion moot. Danielson, J., not participating.