Dustin Chandler v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 07-1221
Opinion Delivered
April 24, 2008
APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF
BENTON COUNTY, CR 2003-1417,
CR 2004-1121, HON. DAVID S.
CLINGER, JUDGE]
DUSTIN CHANDLER
Appellant
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL
DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
A judgment and commitment order entered in Benton County Circuit Court on May 15,
2007, reflects that appellant Dustin Chandler entered negotiated pleas of guilty to charges of
manufacturing a controlled substance (methamphetamine), possession of a controlled substance with
intent to deliver (methamphetamine), simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, possession of
a controlled substance (psilocybin mushrooms), failure to appear, and use or possession of drug
paraphernalia with intent to manufacture (methamphetamine) and that appellant received an
aggregate sentence of 288 months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction.
Appellant, through counsel, filed a petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 on
August 15, 2007. The petition was dismissed by the trial court as untimely filed, and appellant has
lodged an appeal of that order in this court.
The State has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the Rule 37.1 petition was
untimely filed. Where a conviction was not appealed, Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c) requires that the
petition for postconviction relief must be filed within ninety days of the entry of the judgment.
Appellant’s petition was filed ninety-two days after the date the judgment was entered.
The time limitations imposed in Rule 37.2(c) are jurisdictional in nature, and the circuit court
may not grant relief on an untimely petition. Womack v. State, 368 Ark. 341, ___ S.W.3d ___
(2006) (per curiam). This court has consistently held that an appeal of the denial of postconviction
relief will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Booth
v. State, 353 Ark. 119, 110 S.W.3d 759 (2003) (per curiam). Because the circuit court could not
grant relief on the petition, it is clear that the appellant here cannot prevail. We accordingly grant
the State’s motion and dismiss the appeal.
Motion granted; appeal dismissed.
-2-
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.
