KENNETH SLOCUM v. STATE OF ARKAnsas, 2025 Ark. 96

Kenneth Slocum was convicted of capital murder in 1995 and sentenced to life without parole; the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
Slocum successfully sought postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1, but the State appealed and the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed that grant.
In 2022, Slocum filed a motion in the Supreme Court to re-call its mandate, arguing a breached agreement concerning motions in limine at his original trial; this was denied.
In 2023, Slocum filed a motion in the trial court to 'enforce the agreement,' making the same argument about the motions in limine.
The trial court treated this as a postconviction relief petition under Rule 37.1 and denied it as untimely, since it was filed nearly 27 years after the mandate issued in Slocum’s original appeal.
Slocum appealed this denial pro se to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Issue	Slocum's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the motion to enforce a trial agreement was timely	The State breached an agreement about motions in limine; relief should be granted.	The motion was actually an untimely Rule 37.1 postconviction petition.	The motion was an untimely Rule 37.1 petition and is barred.
Whether the court could grant relief on an untimely petition	Relief was warranted due to the unique nature of the agreement and prejudice suffered.	Rule 37.2's time limits are mandatory, barring relief.	Court strictly enforced Rule 37.2 and denied relief.

Slocum v. State, 325 Ark. 38 (Ark. 1996) (affirmed Slocum’s original conviction)
State v. Slocum, 332 Ark. 207 (Ark. 1998) (reversed grant of Rule 37.1 postconviction relief)
Latham v. State, 2018 Ark. 44 (Ark. 2018) (substance of postconviction petitions governs over their title)
Wilmoth v. State, 369 Ark. 346 (Ark. 2007) (petitions attacking a judgment are considered Rule 37.1 petitions regardless of the label)
Maxwell v. State, 298 Ark. 329 (Ark. 1989) (court cannot grant relief on an untimely Rule 37.1 petition)