ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 06-374
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
a/k/a Raymond White
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Opinion Delivered June 15, 2006
PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF [CIRCUIT
COURT OF CRITTENDEN COUNTY,
CR 2003-565, HON. DAVID N. LASER,
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT
In 2004, a jury found Raymond King, who is also known as Raymond White, guilty of theft
of property and he was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment as a habitual offender. After trial,
appellant’s counsel filed a petition in the trial court for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R.
Crim. P. 37.1 based on the trial court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which the trial court
denied. Appellant also filed his first pro se petition for Rule 37.1 relief after his trial counsel filed
the original petition for postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The trial court denied appellant’s first pro se petition in a separate order.
Appellant’s counsel filed an untimely notice of appeal from both the judgment and
commitment order and from the order denying counsel’s petition for postconviction relief. Appellant
did not appeal denial of his first pro se Rule 37.1 petition .
After tendering the record on appeal to this court, appellant’s counsel filed a motion for
belated appeal. We granted the motion. King v. State, 359 Ark. 274, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2004) (per
curiam). On appeal, we affirmed the judgment and commitment order and the trial court’s denial
of counsel’s Rule 37.1 petition. King v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (April 14, 2005).
After the mandate was returned to the trial court, appellant filed a second verified pro se
petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 based on ineffective assistance
of counsel. The trial court denied the petition without a hearing, and appellant, proceeding pro se,
has lodged an appeal here from the order.
Now before us is appellant’s pro se mo