Gilliland v. State, CR11-539

Citation2011 Ark. 480
Decision Date10 November 2011
Docket NumberNo. CR11-539,CR11-539
PartiesMICHAEL GILLILAND APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

MOTION TO DISMISS AND

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO FILE BRIEF

REMANDED; MOTION FOR

EXTENSION MOOT.

PER CURIAM

In 2010, this court affirmed appellant Michael Gilliland's convictions for rape and sexual assault. Gilliland v. State, 2010 Ark. 135, ______ S.W.3d ______. Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 on June 30, 2010.

In order to determine if this court has jurisdiction to consider the appeal, the first question we must address is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider appellant's Rule 37.1 petition. Sims v. State, 2011 Ark. 135 (per curiam) (where the circuit court lacks jurisdiction, the appellate court also lacks jurisdiction). The filing date noted on appellant's Rule 37.1 petition indicates that it was filed twenty-four days after the last date for filing under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2. Because appellant appealed the judgment, the petition was due within sixty days of the date that the mandate issued. Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c). This court's mandate issued on April 6, 2010, and appellant's Rule 37.1 petition wasfile-marked June 30, 2010.

The time limitations in Rule 37.2(c) are jurisdictional in nature, and, if those requirements are not met, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant postconviction relief. Gardner v. State, 2010 Ark. 344 (per curiam). Appellant asserts that his petition, which was filed on June 30, 2010, was tendered to the clerk earlier, and that the circuit clerk had returned the petition because appellant had not paid a filing fee. Appellant, through counsel, contacted the circuit court, and the circuit court advised appellant to resubmit the petition and directed the clerk to accept the petition.

While appellant's response includes a letter from the Hot Spring County Circuit Clerk verifying this statement of fact, we cannot ascertain the actual date of tender of the petition in this case. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for factual findings concerning the date of tender. The circuit court shall return its findings of fact, along with a transcript of any hearing on the matter, within thirty days from the date of this order. Further action on the pending appeal is delayed until the findings and hearing transcript are received.

The State also filed a motion for extension of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Ward v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • February 26, 2015
    ...; Williamson, 2012 Ark. 170, 2012 WL 1353171 ; Talley v. State, 2011 Ark. 497, 2011 WL 5589271 (per curiam); Gilliland v. State, 2011 Ark. 480, 2011 WL 5437539 (per curiam).I acknowledge that the above cases discussing jurisdiction are cases applying Rule 37.1, whereas petitions filed by pe......
  • Branning v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • May 29, 2014
    ...Stewart, 2014 Ark. 85; Paige, 2013 Ark. 135; Williamson, 2012 Ark. 170; Talley v. State, 2011 Ark. 497 (per curiam); Gilliland v. State, 2011 Ark. 480 (per curiam). Appeal dismissed; motion moot. Christopher Branning, pro se appellant. No ...
  • Stewart v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • February 20, 2014
    ...also lacks jurisdiction. Paige, 2013 Ark. 135; Williamson, 2012 Ark. 170; Talley v. State, 2011 Ark. 497 (per curiam); Gilliland v. State, 2011 Ark. 480 (per curiam). Appeal dismissed; motion moot. James Steward, pro se appellant. No response. 1. On June 7, 2013, appellant tendered to this ......
  • Mason v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • January 23, 2014
    ...also lacks jurisdiction. Paige, 2013 Ark. 135; Williamson, 2012 Ark. 170; Talley v. State, 2011 Ark. 497 (per curiam); Gilliland v. State, 2011 Ark. 480 (per curiam). Appeal dismissed; motion moot. 1. One of the exhibits to the Rule 37.1 petition was verified, but the verification clearly p......
  • 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