Taylor v. State

Eddie TAYLOR v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-273                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered May 28, 1996


1.   Appeal & error -- motion for extension of time to file
     appellant's brief granted. -- Where appellant moved to extend
     the time to file his brief because he was incarcerated and
     thus had limited access to legal materials, and where he filed
     the motion before the brief was due and stated good cause for
     requesting an extension of time, the motion was granted.

2.   Appeal & error -- postconviction relief -- all grounds for
     must be raised in Rule 37 petition. -- Appellant's claim for
     postconviction relief should have been brought pursuant to
     A.R.Crim.P. Rule 37 rather than under the conflicting Ark.
     Code Ann.  16-90-111 (Supp. 1995); Rule 37.2 (b) now provides
     that all grounds for postconviction relief from a sentence
     imposed by a circuit court must be raised in a petition under
     Rule 37.

3.   Appeal & error -- postconviction relief -- Rule 37 timeliness
     requirement met -- not wrong for trial court to have
     considered petition on merits. -- Where appellant's petition
     met the timeliness requirement of Rule 37, and in view of the
     fact that it was a petition cognizable under Rule 37, it was
     not wrong for the trial court to have considered it on its
     merits.


     Pro Se Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant's Brief
(Crittenden Circuit Court; David Burnett, Judge); motion granted.
     Appellant, pro se.
     No response.

     Per Curiam.May 28, 1996   *ADVREP*SC11*








EDDIE TAYLOR
     Appellant


v.


STATE OF ARKANSAS
     Appellee


CR 96-273





PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF
(CIRCUIT COURT OF CRITTENDEN
COUNTY, NO. CR 95-422A), HON.
DAVID BURNETT, JUDGE


MOTION GRANTED



                           Per Curiam.


     On July 17, 1995, judgment was entered reflecting that Eddie
Taylor had pleaded guilty to possession, manufacture, and delivery
of a controlled substance.  A sentence of 480 months imprisonment
was imposed with suspended imposition of sentence of twenty-five
years.  Mr. Taylor subsequently filed in the trial court a petition
and an amended petition for reduction of sentence pursuant to Ark.
Code Ann.  16-90-111 (b) (1) (Supp. 1995).  The petition and
amended petition were denied on the merits, and the record has been
lodged on appeal.   
     Mr. Taylor moves to extend the time to file his brief because
he is incarcerated and thus has limited access to legal materials. 
As he filed the motion before the brief was due and has stated good
cause for requesting an extension of time, the motion is granted. 
The time for filing the appellant's brief is extended to thirty
days from the date of this opinion.
     We take this opportunity to note that Mr. Taylor's claim for
postconviction relief should have been brought pursuant to Ark. R.
Crim. P. 37 rather than  16-90-111, which we have declared to be
in conflict with Rule 37.  Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 378 (1994).  Rule 37.2 (b) now provides, in pertinent part, that
all grounds for postconviction relief from a sentence imposed by a
circuit court must be raised in a petition under Rule 37.  
     In the Reed case we declined a petition brought pursuant to
the statute.  The petition in that case met the time constraints of
the statute but not those of Rule 37.  Mr. Taylor's petition met
the timeliness requirement of Rule 37, and in view of the fact that
it was a petition cognizable under Rule 37, it was not wrong for
the trial court to have considered it on its merits.  We make this
observation in the hope that confusion and untimely petitions may
be avoided in future cases by referring to the rule rather than the
statute.  
     Motion granted.
     Dudley, J., not participating.