Title: Davis D. Carpenter, Jr. v. State of Arkansas
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: CR04-638
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: September 30, 2004

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION September 30, 2004 DAVIS D. CARPENTER, JR. Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee CR 04-638 PRO SE MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF BENTON COUNTY, NO. CR 99-562-2, HON. DAVID S. CLINGER, JUDGE] APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS MOOT Per Curiam In 2001, Davis D. Carpenter, Jr. entered a plea of guilty to capital murder and rape. An aggregate sentence of life imprisonment without parole was imposed. Carpenter subsequently filed in the trial court a timely pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37.1. He then filed a second Rule 37.1 petition On March 8, 2002, the court denied both petitions. No appeal was taken. On February 11, 2004, Carpenter filed a third Rule 37.1 petition, which was denied on May 4, 2004. Carpenter 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 his brief-in-chief. We declare the motions moot and dismiss the appeal because the Rule 37.1 petition filed in the trial court was an unauthorized subsequent petition and also not timely filed. Appellant was thus procedurally barred from proceeding under the rule. 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). Rule 37.2(b) provides that all grounds for relief must be raised in the original petition filed under the rule. A petitioner is not entitled to file a second petition under the rule, unless the original petition was specifically denied without prejudice to filing a subsequent petition. Williams v. State, 273 Ark. 315, 619 S.W.2d 628 (1981). When petitioner's original petition was denied in 2002, it was denied with prejudice; therefore, petitioner was procedurally barred from proceeding again under the rule. Moreover, even if the petition filed in 2004 had been the first petition for postconviction relief filed by appellant, he would have been entitled to no relief. Criminal Procedure 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 on a plea of guilty. Appellant did not file the 2004 petition until approximately three years after the judgment was entered. Time limitations imposed in Criminal Procedure Rule 37 are jurisdictional in nature, and a circuit court cannot grant relief on an untimely petition. Benton v. State, 325 Ark. 246, 925 S.W.2d 401 (1996); Hamilton v. State, 323 Ark. 614, 918 S.W.2d 113 (1996); Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994); Maxwell v. State, 298 Ark. 329, 767 S.W.2d 303 (1989). Appeal dismissed; motions moot.