ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 06-231
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ROY LARSON YOUNG
a/ka/ Roy Laron Young
Appellant
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
Opinion Delivered April 27, 2006
PRO SE MOTION TO CORRECT CLERICAL
MISTAKE IN JUDGMENT [CIRCUIT COURT
OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR 2004-3897, CR
2004-4542, CR 2005-1147, HON. MARION
HUMPHREY, JUDGE]
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT
PER CURIAM
On June 16, 2005, judgment was entered reflecting that appellant Roy Larson Young, who
is also known as Roy Laron Young, had been found guilty by the court of breaking or entering in CR
2004-3897. Judgments were also entered on that date reflecting that he had entered a plea of guilty
to two counts of arson in CR 2004-4542 and witness bribery in CR 2005-1147. He was sentenced
as a habitual offender in the three cases to an aggregate term of 120 months’ imprisonment.
On December 28, 2005, appellant filed in the trial court a motion to correct a clerical mistake
in the judgments. Appellant contended in the motion that several options were discussed before he
entered the pleas of guilty and that he agreed to plead guilty with the understanding that the charges
would be reduced to Class D felonies. The court ruled that the judgments correctly reflected the
charges and the sentences imposed and denied the motion. Appellant Young has lodged an appeal
here from that order.
Now before us is appellant’s motion asking this court to correct the judgments. The motion
is essentially a repetition of the claims raised in the trial court. The motion is not properly made to
the appellate court. Moreover, we find that the trial court did not err when it denied relief, and we
accordingly dismiss the appeal. The motion is moot.
-2-
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. 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