Title: Bruce D. Winningham v. State of Arkansas

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION PER CURIAM DECEMBER 20, 2001 BRUCE D. WINNINGHAM Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee CR 00-597 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STONE COUNTY, NO. CR 1998-87-1 HONORABLE JOHN DAN KEMP , JUDGE AFFIRMED Appellant pleaded guilty to delivery of methamphetamine and delivery of marijuana on December 3, 1999, and was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. On March 7, 2000, appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37. The circuit court dismissed the petition on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition, as it was not filed within ninety days of the date the judgment was entered. From that order comes this appeal. 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 appellant could not prevail in the appeal. Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996); Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994); Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 376 (1994); see Chambers v. State, 304 Ark. 663, 803 S.W.2d 932 (1991); Johnson v. State, 303 Ark. 560, 798 S.W.2d 108 (1990); Williams v. State, 293 Ark. 73, 732 S.W.2d 456 (1987). Rule 37.2(c) provides in pertinent part that a petition under the rule is untimely if not filed within ninety days of the date the judgment was entered following a plea of guilty. Appellant filed his petition ninety-five days after the judgment was entered; therefore, he is procedurally barred from proceeding under the rule. The time limitations imposed in Rule 37 are jurisdictional in nature; as a result, a circuit court cannot grant relief on an untimely petition. Maxwell v. State, 298 Ark. 329, 767 S.W.2d 303 (1989). Affirmed. Imber, J., not participating.