ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
 

OCTOBER 23, 2003

CLYDE JOHNSON

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 03-508

PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF CRITTENDEN COUNTY, NO. CR 90-181, HON. DAVID BURNETT, JUDGE]

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT

Per Curiam

In 1991, judgment was entered in the Circuit Court of Crittenden County reflecting that Clyde Johnson had been found guilty by a jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced as a habitual offender to fifty years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Johnson v. State, CACR 00-815 (Ark. App. October 17, 2001). The mandate of the court was issued on November 6, 2001.1

On February 14, 2002, Johnson filed in the trial court a motion for credit against his sentence for time spent in custody. The court denied the motion, and the record has been lodged here on appeal. Now before us is a motion filed by appellant Johnson seeking an extension of time to file the appellant's brief. Because we find that the trial court did not err when it denied relief, the appeal is dismissed. The motion is moot.

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 37.2(c), 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 must be raised in a petition under the rule filed within sixty days of the issuance of the mandate following affirmance of the judgment. The appellant here did not file his motion challenging the judgment within the sixty-day period set by Rule 37.2(c). 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).

Appeal dismissed; motion moot.

1 On January 4, 2002, Johnson filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37.1 in the trial court. The denial of that petition on the ground that it was untimely is currently on appeal to this court. Johnson v. State, CR 03-162.