Kedrick Darrough v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT  No.  CR 07­454  Opinion Delivered  KEDRICK DARROUGH  Appellant  November 8, 2007  APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS  [CIRCUIT COURT OF DREW  COUNTY, CR 2005­66, HON. ROBERT  BYNUM GIBSON, JR., JUDGE]  v.  STATE OF ARKANSAS  Appellee  MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL  DISMISSED.  PER CURIAM  A jury found appellant Kedrick Darrough guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver  and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and sentenced him to an aggregate term of 1,080  months’ imprisonment. Appellant pursued an appeal of the judgment, and this court granted a motion  for rule on the clerk to lodge the record.  Darrough v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Mar.  22, 2007) (per curiam).  In accordance with the order, that appeal was submitted to the Arkansas  Court of Appeals and the judgment has now been affirmed.  Darrough v. State, CACR 07­223 (Ark.  App. Oct. 24, 2007).  During the time that the appeal was pending, on March 20, 2007, appellant filed in the trial  court  a  petition  that  sought  to  vacate  and  set  aside  the  judgment.    While  appellant  raised  some  allegations in that petition which were not appropriate to a petition under that act, he based his plea  for relief solely on Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas, as amended by Act 2250 of 2005 and codified  as Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16­112­201 – 16­112­208 (Repl. 2006).  The trial court denied the petition, and appellant now brings this appeal of that order in this court.  The appellee State has filed a motion  to dismiss the appeal, arguing that neither the trial court nor this court has jurisdiction to consider the  matter.  We agree that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear appellant’s petition for relief  under Act 1780.  Section 16­112­201(a) and section 16­112­202 both clearly state that a proceeding  under the act may be brought “[e]xcept when direct appeal is available.”  Appellant cites Echols v.  State,  350  Ark.  42,  84  S.W.3d  424  (2002)  (per  curiam),  as  authority  that  the  circuit  court  has  jurisdiction to consider a petition even though an appeal may be pending in this court or the court of  appeals.  However, that case dealt with an appeal of a petition for postconviction relief under Ark.  R. Crim. P. 37.1, not a direct appeal of the judgment.  Even under those circumstances, where an  appeal that was not a direct appeal was pending, we found it prudent to stay the appellate proceeding  under section 16­112­201(b).  Here, a direct appeal of the judgment was pending, and the statute  clearly does not permit a cause of action under these circumstances.  Appellant  further argues that his action was not barred because the record had not been  lodged when his petition was filed.  Nevertheless, a direct appeal was still available to him.  It was  not made unavailable simply because counsel was required to file a motion for rule on clerk to lodge  the record so that the case might proceed.  Here, it is evident that an appeal was still available at the  time appellant filed his petition because counsel did file a motion for rule on clerk, the motion was  granted, the record lodged and the appeal has now been docketed.  That remedy was not foreclosed  when appellant filed his petition.  The trial court correctly determined that it could not address appellant’s petition while a direct  appeal remained available.  Because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to address the petition ­2­  on  April  3,  2007,  this  court  also  lacks  jurisdiction  to  address  an  appeal.  Lawrence  v.  City  of  Texarkana, 364 Ark. 466, 221 S.W.3d 370 (2006).  Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion to  dismiss the appeal.  Motion granted; appeal dismissed. ­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.