Clemons v. State (Per Curiam)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Arkansas Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Arkansas Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Appellant James Clemons was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se brief to support his petition for postconviction relief. The trial court declined to consider the brief as it exceeded the ten-page limit for petitions, and also denied the petition. Appellant appealed and sought by motion an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition for postconviction relief because the petition was not timely filed with the circuit clerk.
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 345 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR 11-583 Opinion Delivered JAMES E. CLEMONS APPELLANT V. September 8, 2011 PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF [UNION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CR 2008-156, HON. HAMILTON SINGLETON, JUDGE] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE APPEAL MOOT. D ISM ISSE D ; M O T IO N PER CURIAM In 2009, appellant James E. Clemons was found guilty by a jury of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. We affirmed. Clemons v. State, 2010 Ark. 337, ___ S.W.3d ___. On December 27, 2010, appellant filed in the trial court a thirty-three-page pro se brief that he entitled, Brief in Support of a Petition for Post-conviction Relief. On May 20, 2011, the trial court entered an order in which the court referred to both a timely ten-page petition for postconviction relief and to appellant s thirty-three-page brief. The trial court declined to consider the brief, as it exceeded the ten-page limit for petitions under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1(b) (2011), and merely reiterated the grounds raised in the petition. The court denied the petition, and appellant has lodged an appeal in this court from the order. Appellant now seeks by pro se motion an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. We need not address the merits of the motion because it is clear from the record that Cite as 2011 Ark. 345 appellant could not prevail on appeal if the appeal were permitted to go forward. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the motion is moot. An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief will not be permitted to proceed where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Lewis v. State, 2011 Ark. 176 (per curiam); Kelley v. State, 2011 Ark. 175 (per curiam); Morgan v. State, 2010 Ark. 504 (per curiam); Goldsmith v. State, 2010 Ark. 158 (per curiam); Watkins v. State, 2010 Ark. 156, ___ S.W.3d ___ (per curiam); Meraz v. State, 2010 Ark. 121 (per curiam); Smith v. State, 367 Ark. 611, 242 S.W.3d 253 (2006) (per curiam). In the certification of the record, the trial court clerk avers that no Rule 37.1 petition had been filed in her office. As the trial judge considered the allegations in appellant s Rule 37.1 petition, it appears likely that appellant mailed his petition directly to the trial judge without ever filing it with the clerk. If so, this court has held that delivering a petition to the circuit judge is not the equivalent of filing the petition with the circuit clerk. Meraz, 2010 Ark. 121 (citing Benton v. State, 325 Ark. 246, 925 S.W.2d 401 (1996) (per curiam). Filing the petition with the circuit clerk is critical to the trial court s jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition. Id. (emphasis added). If appellant desired to proceed under the rule, his petition should have been filed with the clerk within sixty days of the date the mandate was issued following this court s affirmance of the judgment in his case. He did not do so, and the time limitations imposed in Rule 37.2(c) for filing a petition are jurisdictional in nature. If they are not met, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider a Rule 37.1 petition. Sims v. State, 2011 Ark. 135 (per curiam); Trice -2- Cite as 2011 Ark. 345 v. State, 2011 Ark. 74 (per curiam) (citing Mills v. State, 2010 Ark. 390 (per curiam)); Gardner v. State, 2010 Ark. 344 (per curiam); Harris v. State, 2010 Ark. 314 (per curiam); Crawford v. State, 2010 Ark. 313 (per curiam). Where the circuit court lacks jurisdiction, the appellate court also lacks jurisdiction. Daniels v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 249 (per curiam); see also Clark v. State, 362 Ark. 545, 210 S.W.3d 59 (2005) (citing Priest v. Polk, 322 Ark. 673, 912 S.W.2d 902 (1995)). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed inasmuch as there is no timely filed Rule 37.1 petition in the record on appeal. Appeal dismissed; motion moot. -3-
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.
