ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

June 7, 2001

MICHAEL WINSTON DENNIS

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CR 99-1159

AN APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY,

NO. CR 96-1459

HONORABLE MORRIS THOMPSON,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

DISMISSED

Michael Winston Dennis was found guilty by a jury of murder in the first degree and sentenced to a term of thirty years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed appellant's conviction and sentence. Dennis v. State, CACR 98-79 (Ark. App. September 23, 1998). Appellant subsequently filed in the trial court a pro se petition pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37 challenging the judgment. The petition was denied as untimely, and the order is on appeal to this court. Because appellant's petition was not filed within sixty days of the mandate, we affirm.1

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in dismissing appellant's petition as untimely. Appellant contends that he mailed his petition within sixty days of the court of appeals' mandatebut that the clerk's office failed to file it on time or that the postal service failed to deliver the petition on time. Therefore, appellant maintains that the late filing of his petition should not be attributed to him and that we should find good cause to exist thereby reaching the merits of appellant's petition.

Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 37.2(c) provides in pertinent part that a petition under the rule is untimely if not filed within sixty days of the date the mandate was issued upon affirmance of the judgment. The mandate in appellant's case was issued on October 13, 1998, but appellant did not file his petition under the rule until December 18, 1998, which was sixty-six days after the mandate was issued. The time limitations imposed in Criminal Procedure Rule 37 are jurisdictional in nature, and a circuit court cannot grant relief on an untimely petition. Benton v. State, 325 Ark. 246, 925 S.W.2d 401 (1996); Hamilton v. State, 323 Ark. 614, 918 S.W.2d 113 (1996); Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994); Maxwell v. State, 298 Ark. 329, 767 S.W.2d 303 (1989). This court has consistently held that an appeal of the denial of postconviction relief will be dismissed where it is clear that the Rule 37 petition was not timely filed. Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996); Harris v. State, supra; Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 376 (1994). Because appellant's petition was untimely, we agree with the trial court's decision to dismiss. Additionally, we would note that we have strictly adhered to Rule 37.2 when determining issues involving the filing of Rule 37 petitions.2 This case does not present a situation where we would depart from that rationale.

Dismissed.

1 In an earlier opinion, Dennis v. State, CR 99-1159 (Ark. February 3, 2000), we erroneously referred to appellant's petition as timely.

2 We declined to adopt the "Mailbox Rule" which provides that a pro se inmate files his or her petition at the time the petition is placed in the hands of prison officials for mailing. See Hamel v. State, 338 Ark. 769, 1 S.W.3d 434 (1999).