Hunt v. State , 2016 Ark. 57 ( 2016 )

Cite as 2016 Ark. 57
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
No. CR-15-793
STANLEY L. HUNT II Opinion Delivered February 11, 2016
APPELLANT
PRO SE MOTIONS FOR
V. EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
STATE OF ARKANSAS [FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT
APPELLEE COURT, NO. 23CR-13-186]
HONORABLE CHARLES E.
CLAWSON, JR., JUDGE
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS
MOOT.
PER CURIAM
A Faulkner County jury found appellant Stanley L. Hunt II guilty of three counts of
rape and sentenced him to an aggregate term of 480 months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas
Department of Correction. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. Hunt
v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 53, 454 S.W.3d 771. On May 19, 2015, Hunt filed in the trial
court a petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1
(2015). On the same day, he also filed a petition that sought relief through a writ of error
coram nobis or, alternatively, a writ of habeas corpus. The trial court denied both petitions
in a single order entered on June 19, 2015. Hunt lodged an appeal in this court, and he
filed two motions seeking an extension of time in which to file his brief. Since filing the
motions, Hunt has tendered his brief. We dismiss the appeal, and the motions are therefore
moot.
Cite as 2016 Ark. 57
When it is clear from the record that the appellant cannot prevail if an appeal of an
order that denied postconviction relief was permitted to go forward, we dismiss the appeal.
Wheeler v. State, 2015 Ark. 233, 463 S.W.3d 678 (per curiam); see also Justus v. State, 2012
Ark. 91. Here, it is clear from the record that the trial court correctly did not grant relief
under either of the petitions, and Hunt cannot prevail on appeal.
Hunt filed his Rule 37.1 petition sixty-one days after the court of appeals issued its
mandate in his direct appeal on March 19, 2015. If a petitioner under Rule 37 appealed
the judgment of conviction, a verified petition for postconviction relief must be filed in the
circuit court within sixty days of the date the mandate was issued in accord with Arkansas
Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(c)(ii) (2014). Barrow v. State, 2012 Ark. 197. The time
requirements are mandatory, and when a petition under Rule 37.1 is not timely filed, a trial
court shall not grant postconviction relief.1 See Joslin v. State, 2015 Ark. 328 (per curiam);
see also Engram v. State, 2013 Ark. 424, 430 S.W.3d 82.
The trial court also correctly declined to grant relief on Hunt’s second petition. A
prisoner who appealed his judgment and who wishes to attack his conviction by means of a
petition for writ of error coram nobis must first request this court to reinvest jurisdiction in
the trial court. Noble v. State, 2015 Ark. 141, 460 S.W.3d 774. Where the record for the
underlying proceedings remains in this court, leave from this court is required before the
1
Although the trial court reached the merits of Hunt’s ineffective assistance claims, this court
may affirm the denial of postconviction relief, even though the denial was for the wrong
reason. Neely v. McCastlain, 2009 Ark. 189, 306 S.W.3d 424.
2
Cite as 2016 Ark. 57
circuit court may consider a petition for the writ. Id. This court had not granted leave for
the circuit court to consider an error-coram-nobis petition.
As for Hunt’s claim that he was entitled to habeas relief, the petition was not filed in
the county where Hunt is incarcerated. Any petition for writ of habeas corpus to effect the
release of a prisoner is properly addressed to the circuit court in the county in which the
prisoner is held in custody if the prisoner is incarcerated within this state, unless the petition
is filed under Act 1780 of 2001 Acts of Arkansas, codified at Arkansas Code Annotated
sections 16-112-201 to -208 (Repl. 2006). Williams v. State, 2015 Ark. 448, ___ S.W.3d
___ (per curiam).
Hunt’s petition for the writ reflected that he was incarcerated in Lincoln County.
Hunt did not bring his petition under Act 1780. The Faulkner County Circuit Court was
therefore required to dismiss the petition because it did not have authority to effect Hunt’s
release from custody. See id. Because the court lacked authority to grant relief under either
of Hunt’s petitions, he cannot prevail on appeal.
Appeal dismissed; motions moot.
3