ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 07-420
LARRY E. NIBLETT
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Opinion Delivered June 14, 2007
PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF
[CIRCUIT COURT OF SCOTT
COUNTY, CR 2004-58, HON. D.
FRANKLIN AREY, JUDGE]
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION
In 2005, appellant Larry E. Niblett was found guilty by a jury of manufacturing a controlled
substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. An aggregate sentence of 480 months’ imprisonment
was imposed. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Niblett v. State, CACR 06-17 (Ark. App. Aug.
30, 2006). Appellant filed a petition for review, which this court denied. Niblett v. State, CR 06-1041
(Ark. Oct. 12, 2006) (per curiam order). The final mandate in the case was issued on October 12,
On December 13, 2006, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition for postconviction
relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, seeking to vacate the judgment. The petition was dismissed
on the ground that it was not timely filed, and appellant has lodged an appeal from that order in this
court. He now seeks an extension of time to file the appellant’s brief.
As we find that appellant could not be successful on appeal, the appeal is dismissed. The motion
for extension of time is moot. This court has consistently held that an appeal from the denial of
postconviction relief will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not
prevail. Pardue v. State, 338 Ark. 606, 999 S.W.2d 198 (1999) (per curiam); Seaton v. State, 324
Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996) (per curiam); Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994)
(per curiam); Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 376 (1994) (per curiam).
Pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c ), petitions under Rule 37.1 must be filed in the trial court
within sixty days of the date the appellate court mandate was issued. The time limits set out in Rule
37.2(c) are jurisdictional in nature, and the circuit court may n