ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
 

JANUARY 15, 2004

KEITH ANTHONY BRYANT

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 03-1077

PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. FRANCIS COUNTY, NO. CR 99-102, HON. HARVEY L. YATES, JUDGE]

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT

Per Curiam

On March 14, 2002, judgment was entered reflecting that Keith Anthony Bryant had entered a plea of guilty to rape for which a sentence of 120 months' imprisonment was imposed. One hundred and fifty-nine days later on August 20, 2002, Bryant filed in the trial court a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37. 1. The petition was denied, and Bryant has lodged an appeal of the order in this court.

Now before us is appellant Bryant's motion seeking an extension of time to file the appellant's brief. We declare the motion moot and dismiss the appeal because the Rule 37.1 petition filed in the trial court was untimely, and thus appellant was procedurally barred from proceeding under the rule. 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 appellant could not prevail. 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).

Criminal Procedure Rule 37.2(c) provides in pertinent part that a petition under the rule is

untimely if not filed within ninety days of the date the judgment on a plea of guilty was entered. As stated, appellant did not file his petition under the rule within that ninety-day period. 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).

Appeal dismissed; motion moot.