ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

FEBRUARY 22, 2001

JOHN E. HEARN

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 00-1257

PRO SE MOTIONS FOR BELATED APPEAL AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [CIRCUIT COURT OF CLARK COUNTY, NO. CR 98-121, HON. JOHN A. THOMAS

MOTIONS DENIED

John Hearn was found guilty of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 180 months' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Hearn v. State, CACR 99-45 (November 10, 1999). The mandate of the court was issued on November 30, 1999.

Sixty-four days later on February 2, 2000, counsel for Hearn filed in the trial court a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37. No appeal was taken, and Hearn now seeks leave to proceed with a belated appeal of the order. He also asks that counsel be appointed. As we find that petitioner Hearn 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 the date the mandate was issued following affirmance of the judgment. Petitioner did not 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.