ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 06-621
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
DONALD VERN SAUL
Appellant
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
Opinion Delivered October 5, 2006
PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME [CIRCUIT COURT OF
BENTON COUNTY, CR 2002-290,
HON. DAVID S. CLINGER, JUDGE]
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT
PER CURIAM
A jury found appellant Donald Vern Saul guilty of manufacture of a controlled substance,
methamphetamine, and sentenced him to 360 months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department
of Correction. This court affirmed the judgment, reversing a decision by the Arkansas Court of
Appeals. Saul v. State, 365 Ark. 77, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2006) (rev’g Saul v. State, 92 Ark. App. 49,
___ S.W.3d ___ (2005)). Appellant timely filed in the trial court a petition for postconviction relief
under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, which was denied by the trial court. Appellant, who has lodged an
appeal of that order in this court and is proceeding pro se, filed the instant motion seeking an
extension of thirty days’ time to file appellant’s brief.
It is clear on the record before us that appellant cannot prevail on appeal. This court has
consistently held that an appeal of the denial of postconviction relief will not be permitted to go
forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Booth v. State, 353 Ark. 119, 110
S.W.3d 759 (2003) (per curiam); Pardue v. State, 338 Ark. 606, 999 S.W.2d 198 (1999) (per
-2-
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).
Appellant’s petition asserted four grounds for relief under Rule 37.1. Appellant alleged that
his trial counsel was ineffective because her caseload was heavy and she had no experience with
trials concerning methamphetamine charges. Appellant also alleged constitutional violations of his
right to a fair and impartial trial, based upon allowance of testimony by two police officers
concerni