Parker Allen Kent v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

SEPTEMBER 14, 2000

PARKER ALLEN KENT

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 00-100

PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, NO. CR 98-1648, HON. WILLIAM STOREY, JUDGE]

MOTION DENIED AND APPEAL DISMISSED

On January 26, 1999, judgment was entered reflecting that Parker Allen Kent had pleaded guilty to three felony offenses and had been sentenced to an aggregate term of 204 months' imprisonment. On September 17, 1999, Kent filed in the trial court a pro se motion seeking to have the judgment modified to reflect that a period of three months and fourteen days, which he had served in the county jail, was credited against the sentence imposed. The court denied the motion, and the record has been lodged here on appeal.

Now before us is a motion filed by appellant Kent seeking an extension of time to file the appellant's brief. Because we find that the trial court did not err when it denied relief, we deny the motion 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).

The motion to modify the judgment was a petition for postconviction relief and, as such, was governed by Criminal Procedure Rule 37. Under the provisions of Rule 37, appellant was procedurally barred from proceeding under the rule in that the motion filed in the trial court was untimely. Rule 37.2(c) provides that all grounds for postconviction relief from a judgment 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 motion 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).

Motion denied and appeal dismissed.