State v. Harrison
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 297
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR 10-638
Opinion Delivered
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellant
July 27, 2011
v.
APPEAL FROM PULASKI COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT, CR 2006-149,
HON. MARION A. HUMPHREY,
JUDGE
KENNETH HARRISON
Appellee
REVERSED.
PER CURIAM
The State brings this appeal of an order entered in Pulaski County Circuit Court that
granted appellee Kenneth Harrison a new trial on appellee’s petition under Arkansas Rule of
Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2011). The State is entitled to appeal from a circuit court’s grant
of a Rule 37.1 petition. State v. Brown, 2009 Ark. 202, 307 S.W.3d 587. Nevertheless, we do
not reach the merits of the State’s appeal, and we must reverse and vacate the order granting
postconviction relief because the record before us demonstrates a lack of jurisdiction by the
trial court in the matter.
In 2006, a jury found appellee guilty of capital murder and sentenced him to life
imprisonment without parole. This court affirmed the judgment. Harrison v. State, 371 Ark.
652, 269 S.W.3d 321 (2007). The mandate issued on December 27, 2007. Because he
appealed the conviction, Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(c) (2010) required
appellee to file any petition for relief under Rule 37.1 within sixty days of the date that the
mandate issued. In order to comply with the rule, appellee must have filed a verified petition
no later than February 25, 2008.
Cite as 2011 Ark. 297
The time limitations in Rule 37.2(c) are jurisdictional in nature, and, if those
requirements are not met, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant postconviction relief. Butler
v. State, 2011 Ark. 218 (per curiam). The record before us contains a verified petition under
Rule 37.1 that is file-marked May 29, 2009, and an unverified amended petition file-marked
October 23, 2009. Although there is a reference to an amended petition file-marked February
25, 2008, in a response by the State, there is no reference to such an earlier amended petition
by the trial court; the order references the petition and amended petition contained in the
record and no earlier pleadings. The record before us does not establish that the trial court had
jurisdiction to entertain the petition or grant relief.
Because it appears from the record before us that the trial court did not have
jurisdiction to consider the petition, we reverse and vacate the order granting postconviction
relief.
Reversed.
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.
