ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

MARCH 29, 2001

CLOYCE EDWARD PETERS

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 00-1337

PRO SE MOTIONS FOR RECORD AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CR 97-4337, HON. JOHN PLEGGE, JUDGE]

MOTIONS DENIED AND APPEAL DISMISSED

On May 11, 1999, judgment was entered reflecting that Cloyce Edward Peters had pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree and residential burglary and had been sentenced to an aggregate term of 180 months' imprisonment. On July 5, 2000, Peters filed in the trial court a pro se motion seeking to have the judgment modified to reflect that a period of time he had served in the county jail was credited against the sentence imposed. The court denied the motion, and the record has been lodged here on appeal.

Now before us are motions filed by appellant Peters seeking a copy of the record and an extension of time to file the appellant's brief. Because we find that the trial court did not err when it denied relief, we deny the motions 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 appeal is wholly without merit. 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 motion to modify the judgment was a petition for postconviction relief and, as such, was governed by Criminal Procedure Rule 37. Under the provisions of Rule 37, appellant was procedurally barred from proceeding under the rule in that the motion filed in the trial court was untimely. Rule 37.2(c) provides that all grounds for postconviction relief from a judgment must be raised in a petition under the rule filed within ninety days of entry of judgment pursuant to a plea of guilty. The appellant here did not file his motion challenging the judgment within the ninety-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).

Motions denied and appeal dismissed.