ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

JANUARY 25, 2001

PIERRE L. WEAVER

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 00-938

PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL OF POSTCONVICTION ORDER [CIRCUIT COURT OF SEBASTIAN COUNTY, FT. SMITH DISTRICT, NO. CR 95-158, CR 95-160, HON. J. MICHAEL FITZHUGH, JUDGE]

MOTION TREATED AS MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK AND DENIED

On July 17, 1997, judgment was entered reflecting that Pierre L. Weaver had entered a plea of nolo contendere to two counts of exposing another person to the human immunodeficiency virus. An aggregate sentence of 360 months' imprisonment was imposed. On October 27, 1999, Weaver filed in the trial court a petition pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37 challenging the judgment. The petition was denied, and Weaver filed a timely notice of appeal but did not tender the record to this court in a timely manner. Now before us is Weaver's motion for belated appeal of the order. As the notice of appeal was timely, we treat the motion as a motion for rule on clerk to lodge the record.

We need not address the grounds raised in the motion to permit the late lodging of the record because the Rule 37 petition filed by petitioner Weaver in the trial court was untimely. Criminal Procedure Rule 37.2(c) provides in pertinent part that a petition under the rule is

untimely if not filed within ninety days of the date the judgment of conviction based on plea of guilty was entered. Rule 37.2 also applies to a plea of nolo contendere. Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996). Petitioner did not file his Rule 37 petition until more than twenty-seven months after the judgment was entered. The time limitations imposed in Criminal Procedure Rule 37 are jurisdictional in nature, and a circuit court cannot grant relief on an untimely petition. Benton v. State, 325 Ark. 246, 925 S.W.2d 401 (1996); Hamilton v. State, 323 Ark. 614, 918 S.W.2d 113 (1996); Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994); Maxwell v. State, 298 Ark. 329, 767 S.W.2d 303 (1989). This court has consistently held that an appeal of the denial of postconviction relief will be not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the Rule 37 petition was not timely filed. Seaton v. State, supra; Harris v. State, supra; Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 376 (1994); see Chambers v. State, 304 Ark. 663, 803 S.W.2d 932 (1991); Johnson v. State, 303 Ark. 560, 798 S.W.2d 108 (1990); Williams v. State, 293 Ark. 73, 732 S.W.2d 456 (1987).

Motion denied and appeal dismissed.