Johnson v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 455 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR 11-682 Opinion Delivered ROBERT LEE JOHNSON, JR. APPELLANT V. October 27, 2011 PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT S BRIEF [PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CR 2007-660, HON. J. LEON JOHNSON, JUDGE] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT. PER CURIAM In 2008, appellant Robert Lee Johnson, Jr., entered in the Pulaski County Circuit Court a plea of guilty to multiple felony offenses in CR 2007-660. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to 120 months imprisonment. On January 20, 2011, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-111 (Repl. 2006). The petition was denied, and appellant lodged an appeal in this court from the order.1 He now seeks an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. We need not consider the motion because it is clear that the record is deficient. This court will not permit an appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Clemons v. State, 2011 Ark. 345 1 The order also refers to a petition to correct a clerical mistake filed by appellant. That petition is not contained in the record lodged in this appeal. Cite as 2011 Ark. 455 (per curiam); 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). Appellant alleged in his petition that his sentence was illegal because he was convicted of a Class Y felony, but the information did not charge him with a Class Y felony. Appellant did not include in the record lodged in this appeal a copy of the information, making the record deficient. The burden of bringing up a record sufficient to demonstrate error is on the appellant. Pitts v. State, 2011 Ark. 322 (per curiam); Mitchael v. State, 2010 Ark. 379 (per curiam). As the record is not sufficient to allow this court to assess the central issue raised by appellant, he could not prevail on appeal. 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.
