Woodward v. State
| Decision Date | 19 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | CR-19-421 |
| Citation | 2022 Ark. 102 |
| Parties | ROBERT WOODWARD APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE CHICOT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 09CR-17-77] HONORABLE QUINCEY ROSS, JUDGE
Robert Woodward, pro se appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Christian Harris, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
On February 25, 2019, the circuit court dismissed two pleadings filed in Robert Woodward's criminal case: (1) a motion to vacate an illegal sentence in which Woodward challenged the judgment reflecting his escape conviction and (2) what appears to be a civil complaint in which Woodward named several individuals as defendants and sought injunctive relief and damages, contending an ongoing violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD). Woodward appears to appeal only that portion of the order dismissing his motion to vacate an illegal sentence filed on February 1, 2019. On appeal, he reiterates his arguments from the motion to vacate as timely filed and further alleges that the circuit court misconstrued his claims for relief. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
On February 1, 2019, two pleadings-a motion to vacate an illegal sentence and a civil complaint-were filed in Woodward's criminal case in which he appeared to have pleaded guilty to second-degree escape and theft of property in September 2018. The circuit court dismissed both pleadings in an order filed February 25, 2019, finding that Woodward's postconviction petition was untimely and that he failed to state facts entitling him to relief.[1]
On appeal, Woodward did not contest the treatment of the motion to vacate as a postconviction petition pursuant to Rule 37.1 (2019), but he alleged, among other things, that the motion was not untimely. In support of his allegation, he claimed that he mailed an initial motion to vacate in late November or early December 2018 at the same time he mailed the civil complaint, and because he did not receive a response or file-marked copy, he mailed a substantially identical copy of the motion to vacate on January 9, 2019. Woodward pointed to a notation on the "civil complaint" filed on February 1, 2019, that indicates it was received on December 3, 2018, and that the State filed a response to a motion to vacate on January 16, 2019. The matter was remanded to settle and supplement the record because we were unable to address the merits with the gaps and inconsistencies in the record as it was before us. Woodward v. State, 2020 Ark. 307 608 S.W.3d 580.
On remand, the circuit court was instructed to hold a hearing to settle the record and enter an order that provided findings. In response, two volumes of a supplemental record were lodged with this court. However, the supplemental record did not include an order with findings filed by the circuit court as previously directed by this court. Consequently, the matter was remanded a second time to include any order that provided findings by the circuit court to settle and supplement the record. Woodward v. State, 2021 Ark 101.
A decision on a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 37.1 will not be reversed unless the circuit court's findings are clearly erroneous. Thomas v. State, 2022 Ark. 12, 637 S.W.3d 268. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the appellate court, after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id.
Jurisdiction is a matter that we are obligated to raise on our own motion. See Scott v. State, 2012 Ark. 199, 406 S.W.3d 1. On the basis of Woodward's assertions, had a Rule 37.1 postconviction petition been received at the same time the "civil complaint" appears to have been received and not been filed through some error of the clerk Woodward's petition would have been timely filed. See Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2 (c)(i) (). However, we were not able to determine whether ...
To continue reading
Request your trial