ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

FEBRUARY 14, 2002

WILLIE WELLS

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 01-1077

PRO SE MOTION TO REMAND FOR CONSIDERATION UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE 37.2 [CIRCUIT COURT OF CRITTENDEN COUNTY, NO. CR 95-1000, HON. JOHN N. FOGLEMAN, JUDGE

MOTION DENIED AND APPEAL DISMISSED

On February 28, 1996, judgment was entered reflecting that Willie Wells had pleaded guilty to forgery in the second degree and had been sentenced to a term of eighty-four months' imprisonment. More than five years later on August 28, 2001, Wells filed in the trial court a pro se petition to correct "sentence for time served" pursuant to Ark.Code Ann.§ 16-90-111 (Supp. 1999) on the grounds that he had been punished enough for the offense and that the sentence was illegal when imposed. The court denied the petition, and the record has been lodged here on appeal.

Now before us is a motion filed by appellant Wells seeking to have the matter remanded to the trial court so that his assertions of error can be considered by the trial court under Criminal Procedure Rule 37 .2 rather than Ark. Code Ann. §16-90-111. Appellant contends that the grounds he should have raised in the petition are "actual innocence" and error in the guilty

plea proceeding.

Because we find that the trial court did not err when it denied relief and there is no basis in law or appellate procedure to remand the matter to the trial court to consider new grounds for relief under Rule 37, 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 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 petition filed in the trial court was not timely filed and thus appellant was procedurally barred from proceeding under Ark.Code Ann.§ 16-90-111 (Supp. 1999), regardless of the grounds advanced in the petition. Criminal Procedure Rule 37.2 (b) has superseded Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111 (Supp. 1999). 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 the petitioner is entitled to a reduction of sentence because the sentence is illegal or illegally imposed, 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 petition 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).

Motion denied and appeal dismissed.