Townsend v. State (Per Curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

Appellant filed in the circuit court a pro se petition for postconviction relief. Appellant indicated in the heading to the petition that the petition encompassed six cases, and Appellant further indicated that he had entered pleas of guilty to felony offenses in the six cases. The trial court denied the petition. Appellant lodged an appeal and filed a motion for an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that the record on appeal was clearly deficient because it contained only one judgment, and therefore, the record was not sufficient to determine if the issues for reversal were well founded or if the petition was timely filed as to every judgment.

Download PDF
Cite as 2013 Ark. 106 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR12-882 Opinion Delivered JACOB JAMES TOWNSEND APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS March 7, 2013 APPELLANT S PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF [HEMPSTEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CR 12-129, CR 12-130, CR 12-131, CR 11-182, CR 11-183, CR 11184, HON. RANDY WRIGHT, JUDGE] APPELLEE APPEAL MOOT. DISMISSED; MOTION PER CURIAM On September 14, 2012, appellant Jacob James Townsend filed in the circuit court a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2012). He indicated in the heading to the petition that it encompassed six cases, CR 12-129, CR 12-130, CR 12-131, CR 11-182, CR 11-183, and CR 11-184. He further indicated that he had entered pleas of guilty to felony offenses in the six cases. The trial court denied the petition, and appellant has lodged an appeal from the order in this court. Appellant now seeks by pro se motion an extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. As the record on appeal is clearly deficient, the appeal is dismissed, and the motion is moot. The burden is on the party asserting error to bring up a sufficient record upon which to grant relief. Mitchael v. State, 2010 Ark. 379 (per curiam); Meraz v. State, 2010 Ark. 121 (per curiam); Daniels v. State, 2009 Ark. 607 (per curiam). The Rule 37.1 petition apparently raised challenges to the judgments in six cases, but Cite as 2013 Ark. 106 the record-on-appeal contains only one judgment, CR 11-182. Without the other five judgments, it cannot be determined whether the Rule 37.1 petition was timely filed as to those judgments. Also, while portions of the petition are not entirely clear as to which judgment or judgments are being challenged, appellant does refer to at least one judgment in which a thirty-year sentence was imposed. That judgment is not in the record. The one judgment in the record reflects a sentence of 240 months imprisonment. Accordingly, it is clear that appellant has not lodged a record to support his arguments in the petition. On appeal from an order that denied postconviction relief, there must be a record sufficient to determine if the issues for reversal of the order are well founded. See Mitchael, 2010 Ark. 379. Without a record sufficient to show error, this court has no choice but to affirm the denial of the petition. Id.; Davidson v. State, 363 Ark. 86, 210 S.W.3d 887 (2005). An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief will not be permitted to proceed where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Thacker v. State, 2012 Ark. 205 (per curiam). Appeal dismissed; motion moot. Jacob James Townsend, pro se appellant. No response. -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.