Title: Kelly Ann Vanfossen v. State of Arkansas
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: CR04-318
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: May 13, 2004

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION May 13, 2004 KELLY ANN VANFOSSEN Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee CR 04-318 PRO SE MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND ACCESS TO RECORD [CIRCUIT COURT OF BENTON COUNTY, NO. CR 2003-492-2, CR 2001-924-2, CR 93-311-1, HON. DAVID S. CLINGER, JUDGE] MOTIONS MOOT; APPEAL DISMISSED Per Curiam In 2003, Kelly Ann Vanfossen entered a plea of guilty to financial identify fraud, two counts of fraudulent use of a credit card, and violating the Hot Check law. An aggregate sentence of 216 months' imprisonment was imposed. Ninety-one days after the judgment was entered, Vanfossen filed in the trial court an untimely petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37.1, challenging the judgment. The petition was denied, and Vanfossen filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. She subsequently filed a notice of appeal that was timely only with respect to the order that denied the motion for reconsideration. Vanfossen has lodged an appeal here from the order denying the motion. Now before us are appellant's motions for appointment of counsel and for access to the record lodged on appeal. We dismiss the appeal because the Rule 37.1 petition filed in the trial court was untimely and Rule 37.2(d) precludes the filing of a motion for reconsideration following the denial of a Rule 37.1 petition. 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). 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 her petition under the rule until ninety-one days after the judgment was entered. Time limitations imposed in Criminal Procedure Rule 37.2(c) 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). Moreover, even if the Rule 37.1 petition had been timely filed, Rule 37.2(d) provides that the decision of the court in any proceeding under the rule is final when the final order is entered disposing of the petition. No request for rehearing shall be considered by the court. Appeal dismissed; motion moot.