Morgan v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. 504
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR 10-812
Opinion Delivered
December 16, 2010
PRO SE MOTION TO FILE BELATED
REPLY BRIEF [MILLER COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT, CR 2002-463,
HON. JOE E. GRIFFIN, JUDGE]
JEFF MORGAN
Appellant
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION
MOOT.
PER CURIAM
In 2003, appellant Jeff Morgan was found guilty by a jury of kidnapping and seconddegree battery.
He was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of life
imprisonment. We affirmed. Morgan v. State, 359 Ark. 168, 195 S.W.3d 889 (2004).
Subsequently, appellant filed in the trial court a petition for postconviction relief
pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2010). The petition was denied, and
this court affirmed the order. Morgan v. State, CR 05-1163 (Ark. Jan. 5, 2006) (unpublished
per curiam).
On March 1, 2010, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition to vacate or
modify the judgment in his case pursuant to “Arkansas Ct Rule 60, (I) & Fed. Rule–60.”
The motion was centered around the assertion that the evidence at his trial was insufficient
to sustain the verdict. He specifically stated that the motion was not intended as a collateral
Cite as 2010 Ark. 504
attack on the judgment but rather was aimed at making the record speak the truth. He argued
that, as a direct attack on the judgment, the time limitations for filing a petition for
postconviction relief under our postconviction rule, Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure
37.1 (2010), did not apply. The trial court denied the motion, and appellant has lodged an
appeal here. He now seeks by pro se motion leave to file a belated reply brief.
We need not address the merits of the motion because it is clear from the record that
appellant could not prevail on appeal if the appeal were permitted to go forward.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the motion is moot. See Goldsmith v. State, 2010
Ark. 158 (per curiam).
Appellant invoked Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 60 and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60. He offered, however, nothing to demonstrate that the federal rule applied to
his postconviction claims, and this court has consistently held that our Rule 60 does not
provide an avenue for postconviction relief. State v. Rowe, 374 Ark. 19, 285 S.W.3d 614
(2008); State v. Wilmoth, 369 Ark. 346, 255 S.W.3d 419 (2007); McArty v. State, 364 Ark. 517,
221 S.W.3d 332 (2006) (per curiam).
We have acknowledged that the theory behind Rule 60 has been applied in those
criminal cases where we recognized a court’s power to correct a judgment nunc pro tunc to
make it speak the truth. Dawson v. State, 343 Ark. 683, 38 S.W.3d 319 (2001). While
Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) allows for a circuit court to modify or vacate a
judgment, order, or decree within ninety days of its having been filed with the clerk, we have
-2-
Cite as 2010 Ark. 504
emphatically stated that Rule 60(a) does not apply to criminal proceedings. Burgie v. Norris,
2010 Ark. 267 (per curiam) (citing Ibsen v. Plegge, 341 Ark. 225, 15 S.W.3d 686 (2000)). Nor
have we allowed for the application of Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c), which allows
a court to set aside a judgment more than ninety days after the entry of judgment. See
McArty, 364 Ark. 517; Ibsen, 341 Ark. 225.
Here, appellant’s petition did not seek to correct some error in the judgment; it sought
to challenge the judgment through a direct attack that is properly made at trial and on the
record on appeal. Appellant offered no authority for the proposition that Rule 60 provided
a means to launch a direct attack on a judgment of conviction, and we know of none. An
argument with no citation to authority or convincing argument in its support that cannot be
sustained without further research on the part of the court is not well taken. See Watkins v.
State, 2010 Ark. 156, ___ S.W.3d ___ (citing Weatherford v. State, 352 Ark. 324, 101 S.W.3d
227 (2003)).
Regardless of the label placed on it by the petitioner, a petition is considered an
application for relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2010) if the grounds
asserted are cognizable under that rule. Mills v. State, 2010 Ark. 390 (per curiam). There are
certain time limits for proceeding under the rule, and it appears that appellant attempted to
circumvent those limits by declaring that he was not seeking postconviction relief, but rather
challenging the judgment directly under Rule 60. Inasmuch as appellant failed to raise a claim
cognizable by Rule 60, however, there was no ground on which the trial court could have
-3-
Cite as 2010 Ark. 504
granted the relief sought. Accordingly, there could be no merit to an appeal from the court’s
order. An appeal in what is clearly a postconviction matter, even where the appellant argues
that his petition is not seeking postconviction relief, will not be permitted to go forward
where it is clear from the record that the appellant cannot prevail. See Frost v. State, 2010 Ark.
440 (per curiam).
Appeal dismissed; motion moot.
-4-
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.