ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 07-40
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
THEODORE GIPSON
Appellant
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
Opinion Delivered February 15, 2007
PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S
BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF
ARKANSAS COUNTY, SOUTHERN
DISTRICT, CR 2004-59, HON. DAVID
G. HENRY, JUDGE]
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION
MOOT.
PER CURIAM
In 2005, appellant Theodore Gipson was found guilty by a jury of commercial burglary and
theft of property for which he was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of 840
months’ imprisonment. Fines totaling $25,000.00 were also imposed. The Arkansas Court of
Appeals affirmed. Gipson v. State, CACR 05-1266 (Ark. App. Sept. 20, 2006).
Subsequently, appellant timely filed in the trial court a pro se petition for postconviction
relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37.1, which was denied. Appellant has lodged an appeal
from that order in this court. He now requests a copy of the transcript of his trial and the record
lodged in this appeal to prepare the appellant’s brief. As it is clear that the appeal is without merit,
the appeal is dismissed. The motion 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);
2
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).
The Rule 37.1 petition contained the following allegations pertaining to counsel’s
representation at trial:
My lawyer did not make a motion to suppress on the grounds of
illegal search and seizure; my lawyer did not ask for a continuance
when our witness who was subpoena (sic) did not show up; my
lawyer allowed the court to reconvene without me; my lawyer
allowed the prosecutor to introduce evidence that was not p