Harris v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. 314
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR 10-301
Opinion Delivered
June 24, 2010
PRO SE MOTION TO FILE
BELATED BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT
OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR 20062398, HON. HERBERT WRIGHT,
JR., JUDGE]
ANDRE HARRIS, JR.
Appellant
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION
MOOT.
PER CURIAM
On February 26, 2009, judgment was entered reflecting that appellant Andre Harris,
Jr., had entered a plea of guilty to murder in the second degree. Appellant was sentenced as
a habitual offender to 240 months’ imprisonment without parole.
On October 8, 2009, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition for
postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37.1 (2010) that was denied on
the ground that it was not a timely petition under the rule. Appellant has lodged an appeal
here from the order. Now before us is a motion filed by appellant for leave to file a belated
brief.
As it is clear from the face of the record that the Rule 37.1 petition was not timely
filed, we dismiss the appeal. The motion to file a belated brief is moot. This court has
consistently held that a postconviction appeal will not be permitted to go forward where it
1
Cite as 2010 Ark. 314
is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Carter v. State, 2010 Ark. 231, ___ S.W.3d ___
(per curiam); Gray v. State, 2010 Ark. 216 (per curiam); see Tillman v. State, 2010 Ark. 103
(per curiam); Pierce v. State, 2009 Ark. 606 (per curiam); Grissom v. State, 2009 Ark. 557 (per
curiam); see also Pardue v. State, 338 Ark. 606, 999 S.W.2d 198 (1999) (per curiam); Seaton v.
State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996) (per curiam).
Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(c) (2010) provides that a petition under the
rule must be filed within ninety days of the date the judgment was entered if the petitioner
entered a plea of guilty. Here, appellant filed the petition on October 8, 2009, which was
224 days after the judgment of conviction was entered. Time limitations imposed in Rule
37.2(c) are jurisdictional in nature, and if they are not met, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to
consider a Rule 37.1 petition. Gray, 2010 Ark. 216; see Tillman, 2010 Ark. 103 (citing
Lauderdale v. State, 2009 Ark. 624 (per curiam)); see also Maxwell v. State, 298 Ark. 329, 767
S.W.2d 303 (1989).
Appeal dismissed; motion moot.
CORBIN, J., not participating.
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.
