Lajason Coakley v. State of Arkansas

2021 Ark. 32

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: February 18, 2021
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2021 Ark. 32 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-20-284

Opinion Delivered: February 18, 2021 LAJASON COAKLEY APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE MILLER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 46CR-16-661] V. HONORABLE BRENT HALTOM, STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE APPELLEE REMANDED TO SETTLE THE RECORD.

RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice

LaJason Coakley appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction relief. The State

argues this court should dismiss the appeal because Coakley untimely filed his petition in

the circuit court. We remand to settle the record because the basis for the circuit court’s

jurisdiction is unclear.

A jury convicted Coakley of first-degree murder. He appealed the conviction, and this

court affirmed. Coakley v. State, 2019 Ark. 259, 584 S.W.3d 236. The mandate issued on

November 14, 2019. Rule 37.2(c)(ii) required Coakley to file his Rule 37.1 petition within

sixty days of that date—January 13, 2020. The record reflects that Coakley filed a motion to

amend the Rule 37 petition on January 15, 2020, suggesting the filing or tendering of an

earlier petition. However, no prior petition appears in the record. He did file a petition for

postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 37 on January 29, 2020. A subsequent motion to amend/supplement the Rule 37 petition and for expansion of the page limits was also filed

on January 29, 2020. The circuit court entered an order denying relief as to the petition and

the additional motion. Coakley appealed this order.

The State is correct that Coakley filed all three pleadings after the deadline for filing

a petition for relief under Rule 37. The time requirements in Arkansas Rule of Criminal

Procedure 37.2(c) are mandatory; when a petition under Rule 37.1 is untimely filed, a trial

court shall not consider the merits of the petition. Gardner v. State, 2017 Ark. 230. A trial

court may not grant relief on an untimely Rule 37.1 petition because it is procedurally

barred. See Millsap v. State, 2018 Ark. 193.

However, the State concedes Coakley attempted to file something on January 2, 2020.

Coakley argues this was a timely petition. It is imperative that the record accurately reflect

whether Coakley attempted to timely file his Rule 37.1 petition and whether the clerk

inappropriately rejected that filing. Without those facts, neither the trial court nor this court

can determine jurisdiction. The trial court never mentioned the timeliness of the petition

and instead entered an order addressing the merits of the January 29 Rule 37 petition.

However, the trial court could not consider any petition without jurisdiction. We remand

to the trial court to settle the record and determine whether Coakley tendered a timely

petition and to supplement the record as necessary to determine jurisdiction.

Remanded to settle the record.

LaJason Coakley, pro se appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Karen Virginia Wallace, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.