ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

June 7, 2001

MARTIN SKARDA

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellees

CR 99-1137

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR 97-1100, HONORABLE JOHN W. LANGSTON, CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant entered a conditional plea of guilty pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3 to possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, and possession of drug paraphernalia. He received respective, concurrent sentences of thirty years', ten years', thirty years', and ten years' imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's denial of appellant's motion to suppress in an unpublished opinion. Skarda v. State, CA CR 98-559 (Ark. App. Nov. 18, 1998). We denied appellant's petition for review on January 14, 1999.

Appellant subsequently filed a petition pursuant to Ark. R. Cr. P. 37 raising six claims for relief. The circuit court denied the petition by order, and this appeal ensued. Appellant contends, as he did below, that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to obtain information and evidence that would have allegedly shown that the arresting officers lacked probable causeto conduct a traffic stop on him, and that the trial court improperly departed from the sentencing guidelines. We affirm.

When a defendant pleads guilty, the only claims cognizable in Rule 37 proceedings are those which allege that the plea was not made voluntarily and intelligently or was entered without effective assistance of counsel. State v. Herred, 332 Ark. 241, 251, 964 S.W.2d 391, 397 (1998). Appellant's claims on appeal are not cognizable because they do not relate to whether his pleas were intelligently and voluntarily entered with the advice of competent counsel. See Mills v. State, 338 Ark. 603, 606, 999 S.W.2d 674, 675 (1999). Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's order denying relief.

Affirmed.