Title: William Dawson, Jr. v. State of Arkansas

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION PER CURIAM OCTOBER 18, 2000 WILLIAM DAWSON, JR. Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee CR 00-699 PRO SE MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [CIRCUIT COURT OF ASHLEY COUNTY, NO. CR 98-66-2, HON. SAM POPE, JUDGE] MOTIONS DENIED AND APPEAL DISMISSED On March 24, 1998, judgment was entered reflecting that William Dawson, Jr., had pleaded guilty to the offense of rape and had been sentenced to a term of 240 months' imprisonment. On April 17, 2000, Dawson filed in the trial court a pro se petition to correct sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.§ 16-90-111 (Supp. 1995), alleging that the sentence imposed in 1998 was illegal. The court denied the petition, and the record has been lodged here on appeal. Now before us are two motions filed by appellant Dawson seeking appointment of counsel to represent him on appeal. Because we find that the trial court did not err when it denied relief, we deny the motions and dismiss the 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 appeal is wholly without merit. 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). Appellant was procedurally barred from proceeding under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111 (Supp. 1995) in that the petition filed in the trial court was untimely. Criminal Procedure Rule 37.2 (b) has superseded Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111 (Supp. 1995); Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 378 (1994), citing Hickson v. State, 316 Ark. 783, 875 S.W.2d 492 (1994). Rule 37 provides that all grounds for postconviction relief, including the assertion that a sentence is illegal, must be raised in a petition under the rule filed within ninety days of entry of judgment pursuant to a plea of guilty. The appellant here did not file his petition challenging the judgment within the ninety-day period set by Rule 37. The time limitations imposed in Rule 37 are jurisdictional in nature, and the circuit court may not grant relief on a untimely postconviction petition. Maxwell v. State, 298 Ark. 329, 767 S.W.2d 303 (1989). Motions denied and appeal dismissed.