Velcoff v. State
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Arkansas Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Arkansas Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Appellant Jacquelyne Velcoff was found guilty by a jury of twenty counts of rape and sentenced to an aggregate term of 168 months' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant then filed in the trial court a pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence. The petition was denied on the ground it was not timely filed. Appellant filed to motion for reconsideration that was also denied. Appellant appealed from the order that denied the motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, declaring the motion moot because the petition filed in the trial court was not timely filed.
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 267
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR 10-572
Opinion Delivered
JACQUELYNE VELCOFF
Appellant
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
June 16, 2011
PRO SE MOTION TO FILE
BELATED REPLY BRIEF [CLARK
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CR
2003-187, HON. WILLIAM R.
WRIGHT, JUDGE]
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION
MOOT.
PER CURIAM
In 2005, appellant Jacquelyne Velcoff was found guilty by a jury of twenty counts of
rape and sentenced to an aggregate term of 168 months’ imprisonment. The Arkansas Court
of Appeals affirmed. Velcoff v. State, CACR 05-950 (Ark. App. Nov. 8, 2006) (unpublished).
On March 22, 2010, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition to correct an
illegal sentence pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-90-111 (Repl. 2006). The petition
was denied on the ground that it was not timely filed. Appellant filed a motion for
reconsideration that was also denied. Appellant lodged an appeal in this court from the order
that denied the motion for reconsideration, and now before us is her motion seeking to file
a belated reply brief.
We need not consider the motion because it is clear from the record that the petition
filed in the trial court was not timely filed. This court will not permit an appeal from an order
Cite as 2011 Ark. 267
that denied a petition for postconviction relief to go forward where it is clear that the
appellant could not prevail. Gilcrease v. State, 2011 Ark. 108 (per curiam); Wormley v. State,
2011 Ark. 107 (per curiam); Delamar v. State, 2011 Ark. 87(per curiam); Morgan v. State, 2010
Ark. 504 (per curiam); Goldsmith v. State, 2010 Ark. 158 (per curiam); Watkins v. State, 2010
Ark. 156, ___ S.W.3d ___ (per curiam); Meraz v. State, 2010 Ark. 121 (per curiam); Smith
v. State, 367 Ark. 611, 242 S.W.3d 253 (2006) (per curiam).
Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-90-111 has been superseded to the extent that it
conflicts with the time limitations for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal
Procedure Rule 37.1 (2011). DeLoach v. State, 2010 Ark. 79 (per curiam) (citing Womack v.
State, 368 Ark. 341, 245 S.W.3d 154 (2006) (per curiam)). As the mandate of the court of
appeals was issued in appellant’s case on November 28, 2006, she was required to seek relief
under the rule within sixty days from the date that the mandate was issued. Ark. R. Crim. P.
37.2(c) (2011); Gardner v. State, 2010 Ark. 344 (per curiam); see also Washington v. State, 2010
Ark. 345 (per curiam); Lauderdale v. State, 2009 Ark. 624 (per curiam); State v. Wilmoth, 369
Ark. 346, 255 S.W .3d 419 (2007). Appellant’s petition to reduce her sentence was filed more
than three years after the date that the mandate was issued. Time limitations imposed in Rule
37.2(c) are jurisdictional in nature, and if they are not met, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to
grant postconviction relief. Gardner v. State, 2010 Ark. 344; DeLoach, 2010 Ark. 79; see also
Holloway v. State, 2010 Ark. 42 (per curiam) (citing Maxwell v. State, 298 Ark. 329, 767
2
Cite as 2011 Ark. 267
S.W.2d 303 (1989)); Buckhanna v. State, 2009 Ark. 490 (per curiam).1 Also, Rule 37.1(b) does
not allow for a subsequent petition unless the original pleading was denied without prejudice
to filing a second petition. Appellant had not been granted leave to proceed again under Rule
37.1.
Appeal dismissed; motion moot.
1
Appellant filed a petition under Rule 37.1 in the trial court that was denied in 2007.
Her appeal to this court from the denial of a motion for reconsideration in that matter was
dismissed. See Velcoff v. State, CR 07-709 (Ark. Jan. 22, 2009) (per curiam).
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.
