Title: Leroy King McCoy a/k/a Malik A. Khabir and Leroy McCoy Khabir v. State of Arkansas
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: CR02-930
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: January 23, 2003

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION PER CURIAM JANUARY 23, 2003 LEROY KING McCOY a/k/a Malik A. Khabir and Leroy McCoy Khabir Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee CR 02-930 PRO SE MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF, FOR DUPLICATION OF BRIEF AT PUBLIC EXPENSE, AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, NO. CR 94-181, HON. HAROLD ERWIN, JUDGE] MOTIONS MOOT; APPEAL DISMISSED Leroy King McCoy was found guilty by a jury of delivery of a controlled substance and sentenced to forty years' imprisonment and fined $4, 000. He was sentenced to an additional ten years' imprisonment in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-411(a)(2) (Supp. 1995). We affirmed. McCoy v. State, 326 Ark. 104, 929 S.W.2d 712 (1996). McCoy subsequently filed in the trial court a timely petition pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37 seeking to vacate the judgment which was denied. McCoy appealed from the order, and this court affirmed. McCoy v. State, CR 99-167 (Ark. March 23, 2000) (per curiam). In 2002, McCoy filed in the trial court a pro se petition to correct sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.§ 16-90-111 (Supp. 1995), contending that sentence was illegal. The court denied the petition, and the record has been lodged here on appeal. Now before us are appellant McCoy's motions for extension of time to file the appellant's brief, for duplication of the brief at public expense, and for appointment of counsel. Because we find that the trial court did not err when it denied relief, we dismiss the appeal. The motions are moot. 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). 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 Criminal Procedure Rule 37.2 (b) has superseded Ark.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 sixty days of the date that the mandate of the appellate court affirming the judgment was issued. The appellant here filed a timely Rule 37 petition in the trial court, the denial of which was affirmed. McCoy v. State, CR 99-167, supra. The issues later raised in the petition pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111 could, and should, have been raised in the Rule 37 petition or on direct appeal of the judgment. The time limitations imposed in Rule 37 are jurisdictional in nature, and a circuit court may not grant relief on a untimely postconviction petition whether it be filed under Rule 37 or Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111. See Maxwell v. State, 298 Ark. 329, 767 S.W.2d 303 (1989). Motions moot; appeal dismissed.