Edward Franklin Wood, Jr. v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT  No.  CR 07­860  Opinion Delivered  EDWARD FRANKLIN WOOD, JR.  Appellant  v.  STATE OF ARKANSAS  Appellee  January 10, 2008  PRO SE MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION  OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF [CIRCUIT  COURT OF BENTON COUNTY, CR  2005­1009, HON. DAVID S. CLINGER,  JUDGE]  APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS  MOOT.  PER CURIAM  Appellant Edward Franklin Wood, Jr., entered a plea of guilty to manufacturing a controlled  substance (methamphetamine) in exchange for the dismissal of two  other criminal charges.  The  judgment filed on April 11, 2007, reflected that he was sentenced to 144 months’ imprisonment with  suspended imposition of forty­eight months and fined $1,000.  Subsequently, on May 22, 2007, appellant filed in the trial court an “appeal” of the guilty plea  based upon inadequate representation of counsel.  In an order entered on May 30, 2007, the trial  court treated the document as a petition for relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, and denied the  petition for lack of verification.  Appellant then filed in the trial court on June 11, 2007, a second  document entitled “appeal” that was again based on ineffective assistance of counsel.  On July 5,  2007, appellant timely filed a verified pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 37.1.  In an order dated July 18, 2007, the trial court denied the July 5, 2007, petition.  On July 30, 2007,  an order was entered that treated the June 11, 2007, “appeal” as a Rule 37.1 petition and denied the petition for lack of verification.  Now before us are appellant’s two pro se motions for extension of time to file the brief­in­  chief.  As appellant could not be successful on appeal, the appeal is dismissed and the motions are  moot.  An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief or other civil remedy  will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail.  Pardue v.  State,  338  Ark.  606,  999  S.W.2d  198  (1999)  (per  curiam);  Seaton  v.  State,  324  Ark.  236,  920  S.W.2d 13 (1996) (per curiam).  When appellant tendered the record on appeal to this court, it was assumed that the “appeal”  dated June 11, 2007, was the notice of appeal from the order entered on May 30, 2007, that denied  appellant’s first Rule 37.1 petition.  If indeed it was intended by appellant to be a timely notice of  appeal from that order, we find no merit to the appeal.  Criminal Procedure Rule 37.1(d) requires that a petition for postconviction relief be verified  and an unverified petition may not be filed without leave of the court.  Morris v. State, 365 Ark. 217,  226 S.W.3d 790 (2006) (per curiam).  The verification requirement for a petition is of substantive  importance to prevent perjury, and in order to serve this purpose, a petitioner must execute  the  verification.  Collins v. State, 365 Ark. 411, 231 S.W.3d 717 (2006); Boyle v. State, 362 Ark. 248,  208 S.W.3d 134 (2005) (per curiam).  Here, appellant failed to verify the Rule 37.1 petition filed on  May 22, 2007, and would not prevail on appeal.  Alternatively, appellant may not have intended the June 11, 2007, document to act as a notice  of appeal from the May 30, 2007, order.  If appellant instead intended to appeal from the July 18,  2007,  order  denying  the  Rule  37.1  petition  filed  on  July 5,  2007,  that  matter  is  not  before  us.  Pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 4(a), a notice of appeal was required to be filed within thirty days ­2­  from the entry of the July 18, 2007, order.  The record did not contain such a notice of appeal filed  by appellant and therefore the order of July 18, 2007, is not before us.  Appeal dismissed; motions moot. ­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.