Abraham Grant v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT  No.  CR 07-784 Opinion Delivered  ABRAHAM GRANT Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee  February 7, 2008  PRO SE MOTIONS TO GRANT APPELLANT RELIEF AND FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT [CIRCUIT COURT OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, CR 2001-272, HON. HARVEY L. YATES, JUDGE] APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR RELIEF MOOT; MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT DENIED.  PER CURIAM  In 2003, a jury found appellant  Abraham Grant  guilty  of  capital murder and first­degree  battery and sentenced him to an aggregate term of life imprisonment without parole.  This court  affirmed the judgment.  Grant v. State, 357 Ark. 91, 161 S.W.3d 785 (2004).  On July 2, 2007,  appellant filed a petition to correct an illegal sentence in the trial court.  The trial court treated the  petition as one under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, and denied and dismissed it.  Appellant has lodged an  appeal of that decision in this court, and the parties have filed their briefs.  Appellant filed the motions  now pending before us, in which he complains of the failure by the State to respond.  In both motions, appellant requests some sort of summary judgment, although it is not clear  what relief appellant seeks in his motion for relief, and he does not provide authority or any basis for  a grant of default judgment by an appellate court in a criminal matter in either motion.  This court will  not consider an argument that presents no citation to authority or convincing argument.  Kelly v. State, 350 Ark. 238, 85 S.W.3d 893 (2002).  We therefore deny the motion for default judgment.  As to appellant’s motion for relief, even were it clear as to what relief he sought, we need not  consider the merits of the motion because it is clear that he cannot prevail on appeal.  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 we dismiss the appeal, appellant’s motion for relief is  moot.  The petition appellant filed in the trial court sought to have his sentence for capital murder  corrected on the basis that he had been charged with first­degree murder.  Appellant brought the  petition under authority of Ark. Code Ann. § 16­90­111 (Supp. 2003), although the trial court treated  the  petition  as  one  under  Rule  37.1.  Where  a  petitioner’s  arguments  are  issues  that  would  be  cognizable  in  a  petition  under  Rule  37.1,  section  16­90­111  is  superseded  to  the  extent  that  it  conflicts with the time limitations for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c).  Womack  v. State, 368 Ark. 341, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2006) (per curiam) (citing Reeves v. State, 339 Ark. 304,  5 S.W.3d 41 (1999)).  In either case, under the statute or the rule, appellant’s claim that the sentences  were facially invalid was not supported by the facts and, under the rule, the petition was untimely.  Where the judgment was appealed, Rule 37.2(c) requires that a petition for postconviction  relief must be filed within sixty days of the date the mandate issued.  Here, the mandate issued on  May  18,  2004,  and  appellant  filed  his  petition  in  2007,  more  than  three  years  later.  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.  Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994).  Furthermore, we note that the facts as stated in appellant’s petition do not provide a showing ­2­  that appellant was charged with a crime differing from the one listed on the judgment.  While the  warrant for appellant’s arrest does list first­degree murder as appellant contends, the information  charging appellant contained in the record on direct appeal clearly states the correct offense of capital  murder.  Appellant was charged and convicted of the same offense.  The trial court did not have a basis for jurisdiction under the rule.  But, under either the rule  or the statute, there was no basis for his claim that he was charged with a different offense from the  charge listed on his judgment.  Because the petition was properly dismissed, appellant cannot prevail  on appeal. Appeal dismissed; motion for relief moot; motion for default judgment denied. ­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.