Detrick D. Croston v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 08-246
Opinion Delivered
DETRICK D. CROSTON
Appellant
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
May 8, 2008
PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S
BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF
FAULKNER COUNTY, CR 20041061, HON. MICHAEL A. MAGGIO,
JUDGE]
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION
MOOT.
PER CURIAM
A judgment and commitment order entered on October 1, 2004, reflects that a jury found
appellant Detrick D. Croston guilty of aggravated robbery and theft of property and sentenced him
as a habitual offender to 180 months’ imprisonment, a fine of $1,000, court costs and fees.
Appellant did not appeal the judgment, and his pro se motion for belated appeal was dismissed.
Croston v. State, CR 06-425 (Ark. May 11, 2006) (per curiam).
Appellant previously brought an appeal in this court on the dismissal of a pro se petition for
postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, filed on June 8, 2006, that the trial court held to
be in excess of the ten-page limit under Rule 37.1(b). That appeal is shown on our docket as
dismissed without opinion in response to the State’s motion to dismiss on the basis that appellant
had failed to timely file his brief. Croston v. State, CR 06-1360 (Ark. dismissed Apr. 26, 2007).
On December 27, 2006, and May 31, 2007, appellant filed in the trial court two additional
pro se petitions under Rule 37.1. The trial court denied one of those petitions by an order entered
on December 19, 2007. Appellant has lodged an appeal of that December 19, 2007, order in this
court, and he now brings this motion requesting an extension of time in which to file his brief.
Because appellant cannot prevail, we dismiss the appeal and the motion is moot.
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). In this case, appellant’s Rule 37.1 petition was not timely filed and it is clear that he
cannot prevail.
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. In this case,
where the judgment was entered on October 1, 2004, the ninetieth day was December 30, 2004. 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, 245 S.W.3d 154 (2006) (per
curiam). Because the circuit court could not grant relief on either of the petitions contained in the
record, it is clear that the appellant here cannot prevail. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and the
motion is moot.
Appeal dismissed; motion moot.
-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.
