Hamel v. State, 98-23
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
| Writing for the Court | Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Palmer, Beverly W. Cutler; PER CURIAM; Cutler |
| Citation | 1 S.W.3d 434 |
| Parties | Eric Alan HAMEL v. STATE of Arkansas CR 98-23 ___ S.W.2d ___ Opinion delivered |
| Docket Number | 98-23 |
| Decision Date | 14 October 1999 |
Eric Alan HAMEL
v.
STATE of Arkansas
CR 98-23 ___ S.W.2d ___
Opinion delivered October 14, 1999
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.
Robert L. Brown, Justice.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
27 practice notes
-
Oloth Insyxiengmay v. Morgan, No. 02-36017.
...(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 filed his petition in a federa......
-
Massaline v. Williams, No. S01A1182.
...to a state appellate court. 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 Neb. 468, 598 N.W.2d 450 (1999)......
-
Causey v. Cain, No. 04-30618.
...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 2. COLEMAN V. JOHNSON DOES NOT CONTROL This Court has refused to extend the p......
-
Setala v. JC Penney Co., No. 22943.
...(1992); Haag, 591 So.2d at 615-18; Commw. 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) (distinguishing Houston, because "filing" in......
Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
-
Oloth Insyxiengmay v. Morgan, No. 02-36017.
...(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 filed his petition in a federa......
-
Massaline v. Williams, No. S01A1182.
...to a state appellate court. 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 Neb. 468, 598 N.W.2d 450 (1999)......
-
Causey v. Cain, No. 04-30618.
...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 2. COLEMAN V. JOHNSON DOES NOT CONTROL This Court has refused to extend the p......
-
Setala v. JC Penney Co., No. 22943.
...(1992); Haag, 591 So.2d at 615-18; Commw. 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) (distinguishing Houston, because "filing" in......
Request a trial to view additional results