ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 07-494
SCOTT R. ROSS
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Opinion Delivered October 11, 2007
PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF [CIRCUIT
COURT OF GARLAND COUNTY, CR
2004-143, HON. DAVID B. SWITZER,
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION
In 2005, Scott R. Ross, appellant herein, was found guilty by a jury of first-degree murder
and using a firearm during the commission of a felony. He was sentenced to 480 months’ and 180
months’ imprisonment, with the sentences to be served consecutively. The Arkansas Court of
Appeals affirmed. Ross v. State, 96 Ark. App. 385, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2006).
Subsequently, appellant timely filed in the trial court a verified pro se petition for relief
pursuant to Ark. R. Crim P. 37.1. In the petition, appellant alleged numerous bases for relief,
including ineffective assistance of counsel, his mental incompetency, wrongly-decided evidentiary
rulings, a violation of double jeopardy, and denial of a fair and impartial trial based upon cumulative
error. The trial court denied the petition without a hearing, and appellant has lodged an appeal here
from the order.
Now before us is appellant’s pro se motion for extension of time to file the brief-in-chief.
We need not consider the motion as it is apparent that appellant could not prevail in this appeal if
it were permitted to go forward. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and hold the motion moot.
This court has consistently held that an appeal from an order that denied a petition for 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).
In his Rule 37.1 petition, appellant initially claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to move for the recusal of the trial judge. He maintained that the judge was biased against
him, as the judge had presided over app