Barnes v. State, CR–16–967

Decision Date02 March 2017
Docket NumberNo. CR–16–967,CR–16–967
Parties Kevin V. BARNES, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

PER CURIAM

On January 26, 2016, judgment was entered in the Pulaski County Circuit Court reflecting that appellant Kevin V. Barnes had entered a plea of guilty to four felony offenses in case number 60CR–14–3790. He was sentenced to serve an aggregate term of 240 months' imprisonment.

On April 6, 2016, Barnes filed in the trial court a pro se "belated motion to retract" his plea of guilty on the ground that he had not been afforded effective assistance of counsel. Because claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are raised in Arkansas courts pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2016), the trial court properly treated the motion as a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 37.1.1 A petition for postconviction relief mounting a collateral attack on a judgment, regardless of the label placed on it by the petitioner, is considered pursuant to our postconviction rule. Bailey v. State , 312 Ark. 180, 182, 848 S.W.2d 391, 392 (per curiam); see also Millsap v. Kelley , 2016 Ark. 406, at 2, 2016 WL 6803694 (per curiam). The trial court held that the motion was without merit and denied relief.

Barnes lodged an appeal from the order in this court. Now before us are Barnes's motions for extension of time to file the appellant's brief, for appointment of counsel, and for a copy of the transcript lodged in this appeal.

We dismiss the appeal because it is evident from the record that Barnes could not succeed on appeal. This court will not permit an appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Justus v. State , 2012 Ark. 91, 2012 WL 664259. The motions are rendered moot by the dismissal of the appeal.

While the request for postconviction relief filed by Barnes was timely filed in accordance with Rule 37.2(c), which requires that, when a petitioner entered a plea of guilty, a petition under the Rule must be filed in the trial court within ninety days of the date of entry of judgment, the request for postconviction relief filed by Barnes was not properly verified. For that reason, it was subject to dismissal by the trial court. Keck v. State , 2013 Ark. 139, at 5, 2013 WL 1385240 (per curiam). Barnes could not circumvent the requirement that a petition for postconviction relief be verified by labeling his petition as a motion to retract his guilty plea. See Lambert v. State , 2012 Ark. 310, at 2, 2012 WL 3373199(per curiam) (holding that, because the petitioner had already filed a Rule 37.1 petition, he was barred from submitting a subsequent petition under that Rule, and his petition was subject to dismissal on that basis, regardless of the label he placed on it); see also Livingston v. State , 2014 Ark. 364, 439 S.W.3d 693 (per curiam) (holding that a petition to correct sentence was properly considered as a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 37.1 because it challenged a judgment entered on a plea of guilty on grounds cognizable under the Rule).

Even though Barnes's petition was signed and notarized, he failed to abide by the requirements of Rule 37.1(c). Randle v. State , 2016 Ark. 228, 493 S.W.3d 309 (per curiam). In 2006, Rule 37.1 was amended to more clearly require that a Rule 37.1 petition be verified. Id. That amendment also required that a form affidavit be attached to the petition, which Barnes did not attach to his petition. Id. Under Rule 37.1(c), Barnes was required to complete this form and to swear that he had read the petition and that the facts stated in the petition are true, correct, and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief. Randle , 2016 Ark. 228, at 3, 493 S.W.3d at 310. Moreover, the affidavit should have been executed before a notary or other officer authorized by law to administer oaths, in substantially the following terms: The petitioner states under oath that (he) (she) has read the foregoing petition for postconviction relief and that the facts stated in the petition are true, correct, and complete to the best of petitioner...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Bridgeman v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 2017
    ...of its Rule 37 cases to this court by means of a footnote in an unsigned per curiam opinion.3 See Barnes v. State, 2017 Ark. 76, footnote 1, 511 S.W.3d 845, footnote 1 (per curiam). Thus, we exercise jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to the authority apparently delegated to us by virtu......
  • Shadwick v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • April 19, 2017
    ...and Whiteaker, JJ., agree.1 The Arkansas Court of Appeals acquired jurisdiction of this appeal pursuant to footnote 1 in Barnes v. State, 2017 Ark. 76, 511 S.W.3d 845.2 In his Rule 37.1 petition, Shadwick specifically argued that the State called witnesses to testify regarding Shadwick's ot......
  • McCulley v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 2017
    ...State v. Grisby , 370 Ark. 66, 69, 257 S.W.3d 104, 107 (2007). Our jurisdiction is pursuant to footnote 1 in Barnes v. State , 2017 Ark. 76, 511 S.W.3d 845 (per curiam). The appellate court will not reverse the circuit court's decision granting or denying postconviction relief unless it is ......
  • Rose v. State, CR-16-1067.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • May 31, 2017
    ...relief. Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 (2016). We assumed jurisdiction of this appeal pursuant to footnote 1 in Barnes v. State , 2017 Ark. 76, 511 S.W.3d 845 (per curiam). Rose contends that the trial court erred in denying her petition because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) file ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT