ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

MARCH 29, 2001

LAMAR BORIS DAVIS

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 00-1295

PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF GRANT COUNTY, NO. CR 94-4-2, HON. PHILLIP H. SHIRRON, JUDGE]

MOTION DENIED AND APPEAL DISMISSED

In 1994, Lamar Boris Davis was found guilty by a jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirmed. Davis v. State, 318 Ark. 212, 885 S.W.2d 292 (1994). He subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37 in the trial court, which was denied. We affirmed the order. Davis v. State, CR 95-1235 (April 22, 1996).

In 2000, Davis filed in the trial court a pro se petition to correct sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.§ 16-90-111 (Supp. 1995), alleging that the sentence imposed in 1994 was illegal. The court denied the petition, and the record has been lodged here on appeal.

Now before us is appellant Davis's motion for extension of time to file a reply brief. Because we find that the trial court did not err when it denied relief, we deny the motion and dismiss the 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 appellant could not prevail. 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).

Appellant was procedurally barred from proceeding under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111 (Supp. 1995) in that the petition filed in the trial court was untimely. Criminal Procedure Rule 37.2 (b) has superseded Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111 (Supp. 1995); Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 378 (1994), citing Hickson v. State, 316 Ark. 783, 875 S.W.2d 492 (1994). Rule 37 provides that all grounds for postconviction relief, including the assertion that a sentence is illegal, must be raised in a petition under the rule filed within sixty days of date the mandate following affirmance of the judgment was issued. The appellant here did not file his petition challenging the judgment within the sixty-day period set by Rule 37. 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 and appeal dismissed.