Ray v. State (Per Curiam)
Annotate this CaseIn 1990, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 1993, Appellant filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 36.4. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that it was not timely filed. Appellant appealed, arguing that the petition was timely because he was entitled to the three-year limitations period under the former version of Ark. R. Crim. P. 37. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant could not proceed under either remedy in a timely manner. In 2015, Appellant filed a “motion for a new trial or reduction of sentence under a belated Rule 36.4 motion for a new trial,” again arguing that he was entitled to proceed for postconviction relief under Rule 36.4. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Appelalnt did not show in his 2015 motion that there was a ground to permit a belated Rule 36.4 petition to be filed.
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.