McClinton v. State, 2016 Ark. 461

Edmond McClinton, Jr. was convicted of raping a mentally handicapped 16‑year‑old and sentenced as a habitual offender to life; this court affirmed his conviction and sentence and issued mandate July 23, 2015.
On September 22, 2015, McClinton filed a pro se Rule 37.1 postconviction petition and a motion for writ of error coram nobis; the trial court dismissed both and he appealed.
McClinton argued his Rule 37.1 petition was timely because it was mailed (postmarked) September 16, 2015, before the 60‑day deadline, and that the circuit clerk’s file‑stamp of September 22, 2015, was a clerical error.
The State relied on Rule 37.2(c)’s sixty‑day deadline from issuance of the appellate mandate and on the requirements of the Rule 37 prison‑mailbox rule (Rule 37.2(g)) to deny the petition as untimely because McClinton omitted the required notarized affidavit and retained‑envelope procedures.
The Court found McClinton did not satisfy the formal prison‑mailbox requirements, but, given the unusual facts and unexplained gap between the postmark and file date, directed the clerk to file‑mark the petition as of September 21, 2015 and remanded for the trial court to determine jurisdiction and rule on the Rule 37.1 petition.
The Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the coram‑nobis petition because the trial court lacked jurisdiction while the record was on appeal and this court had not reinvested jurisdiction to allow coram‑nobis proceedings in the trial court.

Issue	McClinton's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Timeliness under Rule 37.1 (60‑day deadline from mandate)	Petition was mailed 9/16/15 (postmark) and thus timely	Petition filed 9/22/15; untimely absent valid mailbox‑rule compliance	Although mailbox rule not complied with, court ordered clerk to file‑mark petition 9/21/15 and remanded for trial‑court consideration
Applicability of Rule 37 prison‑mailbox rule (Rule 37.2(g))	Mailbox rule should apply because petition was mailed before deadline	McClinton failed to include the notarized affidavit and required envelope retention; therefore not entitled to mailbox rule	Mailbox rule requirements not met; petitioner does not benefit from rule as filed
Clerical error claim re: file‑date (postmark vs. file‑stamp)	File‑stamp is erroneous; delay unexplained; postmark shows timely mailing	Clerk’s file date governs absent compliance with mailbox rule	Given unexplained delay and unique facts, court exercised equitable remedy to file‑mark petition 9/21/15 and remand
Coram‑nobis jurisdiction and procedure	Trial court could entertain coram‑nobis petition	Trial court lacked jurisdiction while appeal record was in this court; reinvestment by this court required	Affirmed dismissal: trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear coram‑nobis because this court did not reinvest jurisdiction

McClinton v. State, 2015 Ark. 245 (direct appeal affirming conviction) (background affirmance of conviction)
Hunt v. State, 2016 Ark. 168 (Rule 37 petition timeliness is strict and mandatory) (60‑day deadline enforcement)
Joslin v. State, 2015 Ark. 328 (untimely Rule 37 petitions must be denied) (timeliness requirement)
Anderson v. Kelley, 2016 Ark. 46 (application of Rule 37 prison‑mailbox rule) (mailbox rule requirements explained)
In re Ark. Sup. Ct. Comm. on Criminal Practice—Ark. R. App. P.—Crim. 2 & Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2, 2015 Ark. 296 (implementation of limited prison‑mailbox rule) (rule amendment context)
Newton v. State, 2014 Ark. 538 (pro se litigants must follow procedural rules) (ignorance of rules not excused)
Adkins v. State, 2015 Ark. 336 (same principle regarding pro se compliance) (procedural compliance required)
McClinton v. State, 2015 Ark. 161 (petition to reinvest jurisdiction denied) (coram‑nobis relief not warranted on face of petition)
Maxwell v. State, 2012 Ark. 251 (trial court deprived of jurisdiction while transcript is on appeal) (reinvestment requirement)
Mackey v. State, 2014 Ark. 491 (trial court may entertain coram‑nobis only after reinvestment) (jurisdictional rule)
Noble v. State, 2015 Ark. 141 (affirming dismissal where reinvestment not granted) (coram‑nobis jurisdiction rule)