Laswell v. State (Per Curiam)

Annotate this Case

Appellant was convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed. Eighty-three days after the mandate was issued, Appellant file a pro se request for postconviction relief, arguing that his counsel had provided ineffective assistance. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that it was untimely. Appellant appealed and filed a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the petition. Appellant also filed a motion for extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and mooted the motion, holding that because the petition before the trial court was not timely filed, the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.

Download PDF

Cite as 2013 Ark. 407 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-12-1110 Opinion Delivered BRODERICK LLOYD LASWELL APPELLANT October 10, 2013 PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF [BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 04CR07-1550, HON. ROBIN F. GREEN, JUDGE] v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT. PER CURIAM On February 18, 2011, judgment was entered reflecting that appellant Broderick Lloyd Laswell had been found guilty of capital murder and aggravated robbery and was sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive sentences of life imprisonment without parole and 720 months imprisonment, respectively. This court affirmed. Laswell v. State, 2012 Ark. 201, 404 S.W.3d 808. The mandate was issued on May 30, 2012. On August 21, 2012, eighty-three days after the mandate was issued, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se request for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2011), contending that he had been afforded ineffective assistance of counsel. On September 6, 2012, the trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that it was untimely. Subsequently, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, along with a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the petition. Now before us is appellant s motion for extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. Cite as 2013 Ark. 407 We need not consider the merits of the motion for extension of time because it is clear from the record that appellant could not prevail if an appeal were permitted to go forward. An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief will not be allowed to proceed where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Holliday v. State, 2013 Ark. 47 (per curiam); Bates v. State, 2012 Ark. 394 (per curiam); Martin v. State, 2012 Ark. 312 (per curiam). In this case, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider appellant s Rule 37.1 petition because the petition was not timely filed. Pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(c), when there was an appeal from a judgment of conviction, a petition for relief must be filed in the trial court within sixty days of the date that the mandate was issued by the appellate court. The time limitations imposed in Rule 37.2(c) are jurisdictional in nature, and, if the petition is not filed within that period, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant postconviction relief. Holliday, 2013 Ark. 47; Bates, 2012 Ark. 394; Talley v. State, 2012 Ark. 314 (per curiam). The petition before the trial court was not timely filed, and, thus, the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. Where the trial court lacks jurisdiction, the appellate court also lacks jurisdiction. Holliday, 2013 Ark. 47; Winnett v. State, 2012 Ark. 404 (per curiam); Martin, 2012 Ark. 312. 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.