Orvil Dale Loftis v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 06-827
Opinion Delivered
ORVIL DALE LOFTIS
Appellant
March 1, 2007
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF JACKSON COUNTY, CR 2003-38,
HON. HAROLD S. ERWIN, JUDGE
v.
AFFIRMED.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
PER CURIAM
In 2003, appellant Orvil Dale Loftis entered a plea of guilty to two felony counts of
possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, misdemeanor possession of a controlled
substance, and misdemeanor possession of an instrument of crime. The court suspended imposition
of sentence. In 2005, the court granted a petition filed by the state to revoke the suspended
imposition of sentence on the ground that appellant had failed to comply with the conditions agreed
on when he entered the plea.
The court imposed an aggregate sentence of 480 months’
imprisonment. A fine of $2,500.00 was also imposed. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the
revocation. Loftis v. State, CACR 05-438 (Ark. App. Dec. 7, 2005).
On June 7, 2006, appellant filed in the trial court a motion for reconsideration of a petition
for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The motion was denied on June 28,
2006, and appellant brings this appeal.
The original Rule 37.1 petition filed by appellant does not appear in the record lodged in this
appeal. Appellant makes reference to it as having been timely filed and contends that it was
erroneously dismissed by the court on May 15, 2006, as having been untimely. No appeal from the
order dismissing the original petition was perfected in this court, and thus the issue of whether it was
timely filed is not an issue in this appeal. While appellant raises a number of points for reversal in
his brief related to the merits of the original petition, the sole issue before us is whether the court
erred in denying the motion for reconsideration.
Rather than filing a notice of appeal and proceeding with an appeal of the order disposing
of the original petition, appellant elected to file a motion for reconsideration. Arkansas Rule of
Criminal Procedure 37.2(d), however, provides that the decision of the court in any proceeding under
the rule is final when the judgment is entered and that no petition for rehearing shall be considered.1
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 37.2(d), the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to address the allegations
contained in the motion for reconsideration. Shoemate v. State, 339 Ark. 403, 407 S.W.3d 446
(1999) (per curiam). While the court did not dispose of the motion for reconsideration on
jurisdictional grounds, it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claims raised in the motion, and
appellant was not entitled to the relief sought. As the court reached the right decision, albeit for the
wrong reasons, we affirm the order. Jones v. State, 347 Ark. 409, 64 S.W.3d 728 (2002).
Affirmed.
1
A petitioner under the rule may file a motion seeking a ruling on a specific issue raised in
the petition and not addressed by the court in its order. Matthews v. State, 333 Ark. 701, 970
S.W.2d 289 (1998) (per curiam). The motion for reconsideration filed by appellant in the instant
appeal did not seek a ruling on an omitted issue.
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.
