Frank Watts II v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

SEPTEMBER 27, 2001

FRANK WATTS II

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 01-544

PRO SE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CR 97-2871, HON. WILLARD PROCTOR, JUDGE]

MOTION DENIED

On January 21, 1999, judgment was entered reflecting that Frank Watts II had been found guilty by a jury of multiple felony offenses for which an aggregate term of life imprisonment was imposed. The jury also found Watts to be a habitual offender. No appeal was taken.1 On October 31, 2000, approximately twenty-one months after the judgment of conviction was entered, Watts filed in the trial court a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37. The petition was denied, and Watts has lodged an appeal of the order in this court. We dismissed the appeal because the Rule 37 petition filed in the trial court was untimely, and thus appellant was procedurally barred from proceeding under the rule. Watts v. State, CR 01-544 (Ark. June 21, 2001). Appellant now asks that the decision be reconsidered.

Appellant erroneously contends that his Rule 37 petition was timely on the ground that Rule 37.2 allowed him three years to file his petition. Rule 37.2, however, was revised January 1, 1991, to provide that a petitioner who did not appeal the judgment of conviction was required to file his petition under Rule 37 within ninety days of the date judgment was entered. Appellant Watts filed his petition approximately twenty-one months after the date judgment was entered. His petition was thus untimely, and the motion for reconsideration is meritless.

Motion denied.

1 In 2000, Watts filed a pro se motion here to proceed with a belated appeal of the judgment. We remanded the matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing and subsequently denied the motion. Watt v. State, CR 00-201 (Ark. September 28, 2000).