Title: Thurman Odis Hamaker v. State of Arkansas

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION PER CURIAM November 7, 2002 THURMAN ODIS HAMAKER Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee CR 02-514 PRO SE MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF BRADLEY COUNTY, NO. CR 96-66-2A, HON. ROBERT C. VITTITOW, JUDGE] MOTIONS MOOT; APPEAL DISMISSED In 1997, Thurman Odis Hamaker was found guilty by a jury of rape, sexual abuse in the first degree, and sexual abuse in the third degree. An aggregate sentence of 120 months' imprisonment was imposed. The court of appeals affirmed. Hamaker v. State, CACR 98-503 (Ark. App. February 24, 1999). Hamaker subsequently filed in the trial court a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37.1, challenging the judgment. The petition was denied as untimely and because its length exceeded the ten-page limit for such petitions pursuant to Rule 37.1(e). Hamaker has lodged an appeal of the order in this court. Now before us are appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and motion for extension of time to file a reply brief. We declare the motions moot and dismiss the appeal because it is clear that appellant could not prevail on 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 the appellant could not prevail. 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). While the court erred in concluding that the Rule 37 petition was untimely, the court did not err in finding that the petition was subject to dismissal because it exceeded the number of pages allowed in a Rule 37 petition.1 Rule 37.1(e) provides in pertinent part that a petition under the rule may not exceed ten pages, unless the court has granted leave to file a more lengthy petition. There is nothing in the record to show that appellant obtained the court's permission to file his petition which was twenty-one pages in length with an additional twenty-nine pages of exhibits. As the petition was clearly not in accordance with the rule, the court did not err in denying it on that basis. Motions moot; appeal dismissed. 1 The court entered an amended order correcting its finding that the petition was untimely; it relied entirely on the excessive length of the petition as grounds to deny relief. Petitioner Hamaker did not file a timely notice of appeal from the amended order.