Cedric Lamar Harris v. State of Arkansas

Annotate this Case
cr02-961

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

JUNE 5, 2003

CEDRIC LAMAR HARRIS

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 02-961

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ASHLEY COUNTY, CR 94-48-1B, HONORABLE SAMUEL B. POPE, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

In 1995, appellant was convicted of capital murder and attempted murder, and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole and thirty years' imprisonment, respectively. We dismissed appellant's subsequent direct appeal because it was not filed in a timely manner. Harris v. State, 327 Ark. 14, 935 S.W.2d 568 (1997). Our mandate issued on February 24, 1997. Over two years later, appellant filed a motion for belated appeal. It too was not timely filed, and we denied the motion. Harris v. State, 338 Ark. 330, 993 S.W. 480 (1999).

More than three years passed, and appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Cr. P. 37 in the Ashley County Circuit Court. The circuit court denied the petition, concluding that it was without jurisdiction to grant the relief requested because the petition was not timely filed. We agree and affirm.

Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(c) provides that if an appeal was taken of the judgment of conviction, a petition claiming relief under the rule must be filed within 60 days of thedate the mandate was issued by the appellate court. The time limitations imposed in Rule 37 are jurisdictional in nature, and a circuit court cannot grant relief on an untimely petition. Hill v. State, 340 Ark. 248, 249, 13 S.W.3d 142, 142-43 (2000). A petitioner, even one proceeding pro se, must conform to the prevailing rules of procedure. See Tarry v. State, 346 Ark. 267, 268, 57 S.W.3d 163, 164 (2001).

Here, appellant filed his Rule 37 petition more than five years after the mandate issued following the dismissal of his direct appeal. Accordingly, he failed to meet the time requirements of Rule 37.2(c), and foreclosed his right to seek postconviction relief under the rule.

Affirmed.

Corbin, J., not participating.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.