Mark Douglas Walker v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

JUNE 13, 2002

MARK DOUGLAS WALKER

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CR 02-37

AN APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BENTON COUNTY,

NO. CR 97-295-2

HONORABLE DAVID S. CLINGER,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant, Mark Douglas Walker, was convicted by a jury of manslaughter, first-degree battery, and leaving the scene of an accident. He was sentenced to a total of thirty-six years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. The court of appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence in Walker v. State, CACR 98-1058 (Ark. App. June 16, 1999). The court of appeals mandate issued on September 9, 1999. Sixty days later, on November 8, 1999, appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief. However, appellant's petition had not been verified pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1(d); thus, the circuit court dismissed appellant's petition with prejudice. It is from that order of dismissal that appellant brings this appeal.

Rule 37.1(d) requires that a party seeking to attack a sentence must file a verified petition in the court which imposed the sentence. This court has recognized that the verification requirement of Rule 37.1 is one of substantive importance to prevent perjury. Carey v. State, 268 Ark. 332, 333, 596 S.W.2d 688, 689 (1987). Petitions that are not in compliance will not be filed without leave ofthe court. Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1(e). Rule 37.2(c) states that if an appeal was taken of the judgment of conviction, a petition claiming relief under this rule must be filed in the circuit court within sixty days of the date the mandate was issued by the appellate court. Porter v. State, 339 Ark. 15, 18, 2 S.W.3d 73, 75 (1999). We have held that the filing deadlines imposed by this section are jurisdictional in nature and that if they are not met, a circuit court lacks jurisdiction to consider a Rule 37 petition or a petition to correct an illegal sentence on its merits. Id.

Appellant's first petition lacked verification, and therefore, was invalid. Appellant's second petition was not filed within the sixty-day time limit of Rule 37.2(c). As such, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in dismissing appellant's Rule 37 petitions. See Worthem v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S..W.3d ___ (2002).

Affirmed.