Vera v. State ( 2016 )

Cite as 2016 Ark. 238SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
No. CR-16-136
DANIEL VERA Opinion Delivered June 2, 2016
APPELLANT
PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION
V. OF BRIEF TIME
[PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT
STATE OF ARKANSAS COURT, NO. 60CR-12-3401]
APPELLEE
HONORABLE LEON JOHNSON,
JUDGE
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION
MOOT.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Daniel Vera is an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of
Correction serving an aggregate sentence of 180 months’ imprisonment. Vera’s sentence
was imposed by a judgment entered in the Pulaski County Circuit Court on August 18,
2014, convicting Vera of the charges of rape, residential burglary, first-degree terroristic
threatening, violation of an order of protection, and third-degree domestic battering. On
October 6, 2015, Vera filed in the trial court a petition to reconsider and/or modify
sentence, and the court denied it. Vera lodged this appeal, and he filed a motion in which
he seeks an extension of time to file his brief. Because it is clear that Vera cannot prevail
on appeal, we dismiss the appeal and the motion is therefore moot.
When it is clear from the record that the appellant cannot prevail if an appeal of an
order that denied postconviction relief were 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
Cite as 2016 Ark. 238Ark. 91. It is clear from the record that the trial court correctly found that it did not have
authority to grant relief on Vera’s petition.
Vera’s petition did not clarify the basis for modifying the sentence imposed. He
merely requested a hearing to “make the court aware of new and mitigating circumstances
to reconsider.” He did not contend that his sentence was illegal or invalid, only that
circumstances since its imposition had changed. Once a sentence has been placed into
execution, the trial court no longer has authority to modify, amend, or revise a valid
sentence. Johnson v. State, 2012 Ark. 212. Vera did not plead facts sufficient for the trial
court to grant the relief he requested. Id.Even if the trial court had treated the petition as one for postconviction relief under
Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2015), it could not grant relief. Because he
entered a guilty plea, under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(c) (2014), Vera was
required to file his Rule 37.1 petition within ninety days of the date of entry of the
judgment. Vera filed his petition more than a year after the judgment had been entered,
and it was not timely under the Rule. 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.
See Joslin v. State, 2015 Ark. 328 (per curiam); see also Engram v. State, 2013 Ark. 424, 430
S.W.3d 82. It is therefore clear that Vera cannot prevail on appeal of the order denying
postconviction relief.
Appeal dismissed; motion moot.
2