ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 06-826
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
BRADLEY LEROY STANFIELD
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Opinion Delivered September 28, 2006
PRO SE MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY, CR 2005-1452, CR 2005-
1852, HON. WILLIAM A. STOREY,
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT
A judgment and commitment order entered January 27, 2006, reflects that appellant Bradley
Leroy Stanfield entered negotiated pleas of guilty to one count of manufacturing a controlled
substance (methamphetamine) and one count of stalking, and received an aggregate sentence of 240
months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction on those charges. On April 18,
2006, appellant filed in the trial court a petition for reduction of sentence pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.
§ 16-90-111 (Supp. 1999). The trial court denied that petition, and appellant has filed an appeal and
lodged the record with this court. Now before us is appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel.
We first note that appellant has not requested an extension of time in which to file his brief,
nor has he tendered his brief, which was due in this court on September 5, 2006. However, it is clear
that appellant cannot prevail, and, as a result, we must dismiss the appeal and the motion is therefore
moot. 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 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).
Here, appellant’s petition requested relief under section 16-90-111 because appellant alleged
that he was under the influence of drugs at the time the crimes were co