Nickels v. State, 2016 Ark. 11

In 2001 Gregory W. Nickels was convicted after two jury trials in Faulkner County and received consecutive sentences of 300 months and 348 months; no direct appeal was taken.
In 2014 Nickels filed in the trial court a petition titled "Writ of Mandamus and Declaratory Judgment with Certiorari" seeking to challenge the 2001 judgments and to proceed with a belated direct appeal; he also filed a motion to obtain docket records.
The trial court denied the petition and motion on April 30, 2015, concluding Nickels should seek relief in the Arkansas Supreme Court.
Nickels appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court and filed pro se motions to correct the record and for appointment of counsel.
The Supreme Court treated the filings as requests for postconviction relief and/or a belated appeal, but held only the Supreme Court can grant a belated direct appeal and that claims cognizable under Rule 37.1 were untimely because they were filed years after the 2001 judgments.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and found the pending motions moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court could grant leave to pursue a belated direct appeal	Nickels asked permission to pursue a belated direct appeal asserting trial errors, actual innocence, and ineffective assistance	Only the Arkansas Supreme Court may grant a belated direct appeal under Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 2(e)	Denied: only this Court may consider belated appeals; trial court correctly declined
Whether the petition should be treated as Rule 37 postconviction relief	Nickels framed relief as mandamus/declaratory certiorari but raised ineffective-assistance and trial-error claims	Claims are cognizable under Rule 37.1 and a trial court may treat them as such	Court treated claims as Rule 37 claims but found procedural/timeliness defects
Timeliness of a Rule 37.1 petition filed in 2014 attacking 2001 convictions	Nickels argued the merits of his claims despite the delay	Under Crim. P. Rule 37.2(c) a petition must be filed within 90 days of entry of an unappealed judgment; these petitions were filed far too late	Denied as untimely; relief unavailable under Rule 37
Motions to correct record and for appointment of counsel on appeal	Nickels sought record corrections and appointed counsel to pursue his appeal	The appeal was subject to dismissal; record issues do not affect disposition	Motions are moot because the appeal was dismissed

State v. Wilmoth, 369 Ark. 346 (2007) (postconviction petitions are governed by Rule 37 regardless of the label placed on them)
Munson v. Ark. Dep’t of Corr. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment, 369 Ark. 290 (2007) (appeals from denials of postconviction relief will not proceed where appellant clearly cannot prevail)