Title: Jerome Lewis v. State of Arkansas
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: CR07-667
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: September 13, 2007

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 07-667 JEROME LEWIS Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee Opinion Delivered September 13, 2007 PRO SE MOTION FOR ACCESS TO RECORD AND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, CR 2004-31, HON. L. T. SIMES, JUDGE] APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT. PER CURIAM In 2005, appellant Jerome Lewis was convicted of sexual assault in the first degree and three counts of rape and sentenced to an aggregate term of 600 months’ imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Lewis v. State, CACR 05-1097 (Ark. App. June 21, 2006). Subsequently, appellant timely 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 denied, and appellant has lodged an appeal from that order in this court. He now seeks access to the record and an extension of time to file the appellant’s brief. As we find that the Rule 37.1 petition filed in the trial court was not properly verified as required by Rule 37.1(c), the appeal is dismissed. The motion is moot. This court has consistently held that an appeal from the denial of 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) -2- (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). Effective March 1, 2006, Rule 37.1 was amended to more clearly require that a petition filed under the rule be verified. That amendment provided the form of the affidavit to be attached to the petition. While appellant’s petition was notarized, it did not contain an affidavit or statement substantially in the form of the affidavit required by Rule 37.1(c). Because appellant failed to meet the requirements for postconviction relief under Rule 37.1, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s petition. Although the trial court did not deny the petition based upon its lack of verification, the trial court could not consider the issues in the petition. See Shaw v. State, 363 Ark.156, 211 S.W.3d 506 (2005) (per curiam). As a result, appellant could not prevail on appeal. Appeal dismissed; motion moot.