Medlock v. State , 2015 Ark. 46 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                       Cite as 
    2015 Ark. 46
    
                       SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
                                             No.   CR-14-550
    
    JIMMY MEDLOCK                                       Opinion Delivered February   12, 2015
                                    APPELLANT
                                                        APPELLEE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
    V.                                                  APPEAL
                                                        [GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT
                                                        COURT, NO. 26CR-12-208]
    STATE OF ARKANSAS
                                      APPELLEE          HONORABLE JOHN HOMER
                                                        WRIGHT, JUDGE
    
                                                        MOTION GRANTED; APPEAL
                                                        DISMISSED.
    
    
                                            PER CURIAM
    
    
           Appellant Jimmy Medlock’s timely petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule
    
    of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2014) was denied by the Garland County Circuit Court by an order
    
    entered December 26, 2013, and he lodged an appeal of that order in this court. In the Rule
    
    37.1 petition, appellant sought relief from a judgment reflecting his conviction for second-degree
    
    battery and sentence of 180 months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction.
    
    The appellee State has filed a motion requesting that this court dismiss the appeal because
    
    appellant is no longer incarcerated. We grant the motion, and the appeal is dismissed.
    
           The State correctly notes that appellant provided a change of address to this court that
    
    indicates appellant is no longer incarcerated. Our precedent is clear that a person must be
    
    physically incarcerated in order to be eligible to proceed under Rule 37.1. Criswell v. State, 
    2014 Ark. 205
     (per curiam) (citing Branning v. State, 
    2010 Ark. 401
    ); see also Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1(a).
    
    Our precedent is clear that a person on parole is not eligible to proceed under Rule 37.1.
                                         Cite as 
    2015 Ark. 46
    
    Branning, 
    2010 Ark. 401
    , at 3.1 Because appellant is no longer incarcerated on the charges at
    
    issue, granting relief would have no further effect, and he can no longer proceed under Rule 37.1
    
    even if his arguments on appeal or in the Rule 37.1 petition had merit. Criswell, 
    2014 Ark. 205
    .
    
    Accordingly, we grant the motion, and the appeal is dismissed.
    
           Motion granted; appeal dismissed.
    
           Jimmy Medlock, pro se appellant.
    
           Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Brad K. Newman, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
    
    
    
    
           1
            In a late tendered response to the State’s motion to dismiss, appellant admits that he is
    on parole but contends that he should be considered incarcerated while he is under the
    supervision of the Arkansas Department of Correction.
    
                                                   2
    

Document Info

DocketNumber: CR-14-550

Citation Numbers: 2015 Ark. 46

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 2/12/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/12/2015