Summary
The Arkansas Supreme Court denied Melchizedek Shabazz’s request to proceed with a belated appeal from the dismissal of his Rule 37.1 postconviction petition. The court held that the petition was untimely because it was filed more than ninety days after the judgment entered on his guilty or nolo contendere pleas, and that his prior invalid appeal did not extend the filing period.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Shabazz was entitled to a belated appeal from the dismissal of his Rule 37.1 postconviction petition.
- Whether the Rule 37.1 petition was timely when filed more than ninety days after judgment entered on a guilty or nolo contendere plea.
- Whether pursuit of an invalid direct appeal excused the failure to file a timely Rule 37.1 petition.
Holdings
- A petition attacking a judgment entered on a guilty or nolo contendere plea must be filed within ninety days after entry of judgment; Shabazz's petition, filed on August 11, 2003, was untimely because the ninety-day period expired on December 16, 2002.
- The time limitations imposed by Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37 are jurisdictional, and an untimely petition cannot support postconviction relief.
- An invalid appeal from a nonappealable judgment does not alter the Rule 37 filing deadline or make a later petition timely.
- Counsel's alleged error in pursuing an invalid appeal does not excuse failure to satisfy the jurisdictional deadline for filing a Rule 37.1 petition.
Factual background
On September 17, 2002, judgment was entered after Shabazz pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to three delivery-of-a-controlled-substance counts, resulting in an aggregate forty-year prison sentence. His attempted direct appeal was dismissed because the plea did not satisfy the requirements for a conditional plea under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 24.3(b). He filed a Rule 37.1 postconviction petition on August 11, 2003, more than ninety days after entry of judgment, and the trial court dismissed it as untimely.
Procedural history
Shabazz pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to three counts of delivery of a controlled substance and received an aggregate forty-year sentence. The court of appeals dismissed his direct appeal because the plea was not a valid conditional plea preserving review of a suppression ruling. Shabazz later filed a Rule 37.1 petition in the trial court, which was dismissed as untimely. He did not timely appeal that dismissal and sought a belated appeal in the Supreme Court of Arkansas, which denied the motion.