ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

FEBRUARY 22, 2001

MARVIN SMITH

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 00-1135

PRO SE MOTIONS FOR BELATED APPEAL AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CR 97-3439, HON. JOHN LANGSTON]

MOTIONS DENIED

Marvin Smith was found guilty of kidnapping and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Smith v. State, CACR 98-535 (March 17, 1999). The mandate of the court was issued on April 6, 1999.

Almost ten months later on January 27, 2000, Smith filed in the trial court a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37 which was denied. No appeal was taken, and Smith now seeks leave to proceed with a belated appeal of the order. He also asks that counsel be appointed. As we find that petitioner Smith could not be successful on appeal even if he were permitted to proceed, the motions are denied. See Pardue v. State, 338 Ark. 606, 999 S.W.2d 198 (1999); Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996); Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994); 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).

The Rule 37 petition in the trial court was not timely filed; and, as a result, petitioner was procedurally barred from proceeding under the rule. Rule 37 provides that all grounds for postconviction relief must be raised in a petition under the rule filed within sixty days of affirmance of the judgment. Petitioner did to file his petition challenging the judgment within this sixty-day period. The time limitations imposed in Rule 37 are jurisdictional in nature, and the circuit court may not grant relief on a untimely postconviction petition. Maxwell v. State, 298 Ark. 329, 767 S.W.2d 303 (1989).

Motion denied.