ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

MARCH 8, 2001

JAMES LEGGINS

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 00-1052

PRO SE MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK TO FILE A BELATED BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI, NO. CR 79-572, HON. MARION HUMPHREY, JUDGE]

MOTION DENIED AND APPEAL DISMISSED

In 1980, James Leggins was found guilty by a jury of two counts of aggravated robbery and sentenced as a habitual offender to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment. We affirmed. Leggins v. State, 271 Ark. 616, 609 S.W.2d 76 (1980).

In 2000, Leggins filed in the trial court a petition to correct the sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §16-90-111 (Supp. 1995). The petition was denied, and the record has been lodged here on appeal. Leggins did not tender the appellant's brief in a timely manner and now seeks leave to file a belated brief.

The motion is denied, and the appeal dismissed as it is clear that the appellant could not prevail on appeal. This court has consistently held that an appeal of the denial of postconviction relief will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appeal is wholly without merit. Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996); Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887S.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).

Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-90-111, as applied to a defendant convicted in 1980, permitted the trial court to correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner within 120 days after judgment was entered and to correct at any time a sentence illegal on its face. Abdullah v. State, 290 Ark. 537, 720 S.W.2d 902 (1986).1 Appellant did not file the petition for postconviction relief until twenty years after he was convicted. As a result, appellant was entitled to no relief under the statute absent a showing that the sentence was illegal on its face.

Appellant asserted that the finding that he was a habitual offender constituted a violation of the constitutional provisions against double jeopardy. As the allegation did not demonstrate that the sentence of two consecutive terms of life imprisonment, which was within statutory range, was illegal on its face, the trial court did not err when it denied relief pursuant to the statute.

Motion denied and appeal dismissed.