Hamel v. State
Citation | 1 S.W.3d 434 |
Decision Date | 14 October 1999 |
Docket Number | 98-23 |
Parties | Eric Alan HAMEL v. STATE of Arkansas CR 98-23 ___ S.W.2d ___ Opinion delivered |
Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Appeal from Benton Circuit Court; William Storey, Judge; affirmed.
1. Appeal & error -- post-conviction relief -- time limitations are jurisdictional. -- The time limitations imposed in Ark. R. Crim. P. 37 are jurisdictional in nature; the circuit court may not grant relief on an untimely petition for post-conviction relief; the date of filing a petition for post-conviction relief is determinative of whether the trial court has jurisdiction to reach the merits of the case.
2. Appeal & error -- post-conviction relief -- pro se inmates required to conform to appellate rules. -- Pro se inmates are required to conform to the rules of appellate procedure.
3. Appeal & error -- post-conviction relief -- appellant's petition filed on ninety-second day -- correctly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. -- Where Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c) required in language that was clear and unambiguous that a petition for post-conviction relief must be filed in the appropriate circuit court within ninety days of judgment, and where appellant's petition, which had been placed in the inmate mailing system eighty-six days after judgment, was file-marked in the circuit clerk's office on the ninety-second day after entry of judgment, the supreme court held that the trial court correctly dismissed appellant's petition for lack of jurisdiction; the court declined to adopt the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of inapplicable federal rules.
Craig Lambert, for appellant.
Mark Pryor, Att'y Gen., by: David R. Raupp, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
Appellant Eric Hamel appeals on the basis that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37, when that petition was received more than ninety days after judgment was entered against him. We discern no error in the trial court's dismissal and affirm.
The facts are not in dispute. Hamel pled guilty to a reduced charge of first-degree murder and was sentenced to forty years in prison with ten years suspended. On June 11, 1996, the judgment of conviction was entered against him in the Benton County Circuit Clerk's office. On September 5, 1996, which was eighty-six days after entry of judgment, Hamel placed his Rule 37 petition in the inmate mailing system at the Cummins Unit of the Department of Correction. The Legal Mail Log at the Cummins Unit substantiates this fact. On September 11, 1996, Hamel's petition was stamped filed in the Benton County Circuit Clerk's office. Because Hamel's petition was file-marked on the ninety-second day after entry of judgment, the trial court dismissed the petition.
Hamel's sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition and urges this court to adopt the "Mailbox Rule," which provides that a pro se inmate files his or her petition at the time the petition is placed in the hands of prison officials for mailing. In support of his argument, Hamel cites us to the reasoning in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), where the United States Supreme Court concluded that a notice of appeal in a habeas corpus case was filed when the petitioner delivered that notice to prison authorities for mailing. The rationale of the Court was that prison inmates were foreclosed from being able to monitor the progress of their appeals by virtue of their incarceration and were forced "to entrust their appeals to the vagaries of the mail ...." 487 U.S. at 271. The pertinent federal statute involved in Houston provided that appeals from a judgment shall not be brought "unless the notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the entry of such judgment." See 28U.S.C. § 2107. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3(a) and 4(a)(1) were even...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oloth Insyxiengmay v. Morgan
......Following his conviction and a series of appeals in the Washington state courts, Insyxiengmay petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus. He now contends that the district court erred in dismissing three of ...441, 553 N.E.2d 1299 (1990) (same); Smith v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 546 Pa. 115, 683 A.2d 278 (1996) (same). But see, e.g., Hamel v. State, 338 Ark. 769, 1 S.W.3d 434 (1999) (refusing to adopt the mailbox rule); Carr v. State, 554 A.2d 778 (Del.1989) (same). Had Insyxiengmay ......
-
Massaline v. Williams
...... Other state courts have adopted mailbox rules because pro se prisoners in those states face the same kinds of obstacles as described by the United States Supreme ...Grant v. Senkowski, 95 N.Y.2d 605, 721 N.Y.S.2d 597, 744 N.E.2d 132 (2001); Hamel v. State, 338 Ark. 769, 1 S.W.3d 434 (1999); State v. Parmar, 255 Neb. 356, 586 N.W.2d 279 (1998), overruled on other grounds, State v. Edmonson, 257 ......
-
Setala v. JC Penney Co.
...... See Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614, 617 (Fla.1992) (discussing the constitutional implications of not allowing a "mailbox rule"). . A rule other than the mailbox rule ...v. Hartsgrove, 407 Mass. 441, 553 N.E.2d 1299, 1300-03 (1990) . Cf. Hamel v. State, 338 Ark. 769, 1 S.W.3d 434, 436 (Ark.1999) ; State ex rel. Shimkus v. Sondalle, 239 Wis.2d 327, 620 N.W.2d 409, 412 (2000) ......
-
Causey v. Cain
.... 450 F.3d 601. Harlan CAUSEY, Petitioner-Appellant,. v. Burl CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee. No. 04-30618. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. May 24, 2006. Page 602. Harlan ...Other courts have rejected Houston as a matter of state law. Grant v. Senkowski, 95 N.Y.2d 605, 721 N.Y.S.2d 597, 744 N.E.2d 132, 134 (2001); Hamel v. State, 338 Ark. 769, 1 S.W.3d 434, 436 (1999); State v. Parmar, 255 Neb. 356, 586 N.W.2d 279, 284 (1998). 2. COLEMAN V. JOHNSON ......