Robinson v. State (Majority)

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s interlocutory appeal from an order of the trial court that denied his pro se motion for reconsideration of the order that denied his motion to file an overlength amendment to his postconviction relief petition pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, holding that the order that denied the motion for reconsideration was not a final, appealable order.

In his Rule 37.1 petition, Appellant challenged the judgment of conviction entered in his criminal case and filed a motion seeking leave of the court to file an overlength amendment to the Rule 37.1 petition. After the trial court denied the motion, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. Appellant then filed this interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Petitioner was not permitted to proceed with an interlocutory appeal of the denial of motions filed in the course of a Rule 37.1 proceeding.

Download PDF

Cite as 2018 Ark. 406 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-18-493 Opinion Delivered: GARY ROBINSON APPELLANT V. STATE OF ARKANSAS December 20, 2018 PRO SE MOTION TO FILE A BELATED BRIEF [FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 23CR-15-276] APPELLEE APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT. SHAWN A. WOMACK, Associate Justice Gary Robinson brings an interlocutory appeal from the order of the trial court that denied his pro se motion for reconsideration of the order that denied his motion to file an overlength amendment to his petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2015). Now before us is Robinson’s motion to file a belated brief. Because the order that denied the motion for reconsideration was not a final, appealable order, the appeal is dismissed. See Flowers v. State, 2018 Ark. 163, 544 S.W.3d 553; McCullough v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 78. Therefore, the motion to file a belated brief is moot. On February 15, 2018, Robinson filed a Rule 37.1 petition challenging the judgment of conviction entered in his criminal case and a motion seeking leave of the trial court to file an overlength amendment to the Rule 37.1 petition.1 The trial court denied the motion on March 29, 2018, and Robinson filed a motion for reconsideration on April 24, 2018, which was denied. Robinson then filed a “Notice of Interlocutory Appeal” and lodged the instant appeal in this court. Postconviction proceedings under Rule 37 are civil in nature, State v. Robinson, 2011 Ark. 90, because when an appeal arises from a collateral proceeding, the appeal is civil in nature. Id. Rule 2 of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil (2017) lists the orders from which an appeal may be taken. Generally, for an order to be appealable, it must dismiss the parties from the court, discharge them from the action, or conclude their rights to the subject matter in controversy. Fields v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 39. An appeal will be premature if the decision does not, from a practical standpoint, conclude the merits of the case. Id. When the petitioner in a Rule 37.1 proceeding desires to appeal from an adverse ruling on some issue raised in the course of the proceeding, such as the denial of a motion to amend the petition, he or she must raise the issue as part of the appeal from the final Rule 37.1 order. See Dodson v. State, 326 Ark. 637, 643, 934 S.W.2d 198, 201 (1996); see 1 Rule 37.1(b) provides that a petition under the Rule must meet certain procedural requirements, including a limit on the number of pages in the petition. Rule 37.2(e) provides that the petition may be amended before it is acted on if the court grants permission to file an amended petition. 2 also Preston v. State, 303 Ark. 106, 108, 792 S.W.2d 599, 600 (1990) (Because the trial court had not yet ruled on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in a motion for new trial, there was no appealable order entered on the issue.). The petitioner is not permitted to proceed with an interlocutory appeal of the denial of motions filed in the course of the Rule 37.1 proceeding. Appeal dismissed; motion moot. 3

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.