From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. State

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
May 17, 2012
2012 Ark. 214 (Ark. 2012)

Opinion

No. CR 11-1191

05-17-2012

MITCHELL SCOTT JOHNSON APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE


PRO SE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [BENTON COUNTY

CIRCUIT COURT, CR 08-274, HON. ROBIN F. GREEN, JUDGE]


APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION MOOT.


PER CURIAM

This court granted appellant Mitchell Scott Johnson's motion for belated appeal of an order by the trial court that denied his petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2011). Johnson v. State, 2012 Ark. 47 (per curiam). Appellant has now filed a pro se motion for appointment of counsel. We dismiss the appeal, and the motion is moot.

An appeal from an order that denied a petition for a postconviction remedy will not be permitted to proceed where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Perry v. State, 2012 Ark. 98 (per curiam). Appellant indicates in the motion that he has been paroled from the Arkansas Department of Correction. Because he is no longer incarcerated for the judgment at issue in his Rule 37.1 petition, granting relief in this case would have no practical effect. See Bohanan v. State, 336 Ark. 367, 985 S.W.2d 708 (1999). Our precedent is clear that a person on parole is not eligible to proceed under Rule 37.1. Branning v. State, 2010 Ark. 401. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal because appellant can no longer proceed under Rule 37.1, even if his arguments had merit, and appellant cannot prevail on appeal. The motion for appointment of counsel is therefore moot.

Appellant is currently incarcerated in a Federal Correctional Institution in Florida on other charges.

Appeal dismissed; motion moot.


Summaries of

Johnson v. State

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
May 17, 2012
2012 Ark. 214 (Ark. 2012)
Case details for

Johnson v. State

Case Details

Full title:MITCHELL SCOTT JOHNSON APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE

Court:SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

Date published: May 17, 2012

Citations

2012 Ark. 214 (Ark. 2012)

Citing Cases

Erdman Co. v. Phx. Land & Acquisition, LLC

That certainty is more important in proving that lost profits actually occurred than it is in proving the…

Criswell v. State

Because appellant is no longer incarcerated on the charges at issue, granting relief would have no further…