ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 07-224
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Opinion Delivered May 3, 2007
PRO SE MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S
BRIEF AND TO SUPPLEMENT
ABSTRACT [CIRCUIT COURT OF
PHILLIPS COUNTY, CR 2001-272,
HON. HARVEY YATES, JUDGE]
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS
Appellant Abraham Grant was found guilty by a jury of capital murder and first-degree
battery and sentenced to an aggregate term of life imprisonment without parole. We affirmed. Grant
v. State, 357 Ark. 91, 161 S.W.3d 785 (2004).
In 2006, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition for writ of mandamus and a pro se
petition for declaratory judgment. Each of the petitions consisted of an attack on the credibility of
witnesses at appellant’s trial and alleged errors by the trial court in admission of evidence at trial.
The petitions were denied in a single order on the grounds that the claims in the petitions concerned
evidentiary matters that could have been addressed at trial and on direct appeal rather than by means
of a petition for writ of mandamus or declaratory judgment. Appellant has lodged an appeal from
the order in this court and now seeks an extension of time to file the appellant’s brief and leave to
The relief sought in the motion to supplement the abstract in the appellant’s brief is not
clear inasmuch as appellant had not tendered a brief when the motion was filed.
supplement the abstract in his brief.
As we find no merit to the 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) (p