Terrance Manuel v. State of Arkansas, 2021 Ark. 24

Manuel pleaded guilty in Sept. 2000 to two counts of first-degree murder (other counts dismissed/reduced) and was sentenced to an aggregate 540 months (45 years) as reflected in the judgment entered Oct. 4, 2000.
Manuel later asserted (in a 2020 motion to enforce plea agreement) that his plea agreement promised concurrent 40-year sentences but the court had split each 40-year sentence (35 years concurrent + 5 years consecutive), effectively adding five years.
The circuit court denied Manuel’s motion to enforce the plea agreement on March 24, 2020; it later denied a separate “motion for clarification” on April 6, 2020 (the clarification motion is not in the appellate record).
Manuel filed a notice of appeal on April 30, 2020; the State argued the appeal was untimely because the postconviction motion was untimely and because the record lacks the clarification motion.
The record’s plea transcript shows the trial court informed Manuel of the additional five-year term and Manuel acknowledged understanding and made no objection.
The majority held Manuel’s motion was an untimely postconviction petition under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c) (90-day limit after judgment for guilty-plea convictions), and his notice of appeal was therefore untimely; the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Justice Webb dissented, arguing the missing clarification motion (filed and ruled on below) requires remand to settle the record.

Issue	Manuel's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence imposed violated the plea agreement	Court imposed an extra 5 years (split 40-yr sentences) not promised; seeks enforcement	Petition was an untimely collateral attack; sentence legality not properly raised	Court treated motion as an untimely Rule 37 petition and declined to reach merits; no relief
Whether Manuel’s postconviction motion was timely under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2	Motion should be considered despite passage of time; relief warranted	Rule 37.2(c) requires filing within 90 days of judgment for guilty pleas; Manuel’s Oct. 2000 judgment makes a 2020 filing untimely	Motion untimely under Rule 37.2(c); circuit court lacked authority to grant relief
Whether the missing "motion for clarification" preserved appellate timeliness	Clarification motion (ruled on below) should toll/extend appeal time if it asked the court to rule on an omitted issue	The clarification motion is not in the record; appellant bears burden to furnish record; no tolling shown	Because the clarification motion is absent from the record, the court will not consider it and Manuel’s notice of appeal is untimely; appeal dismissed

Barnett v. State, 598 S.W.3d 835 (Ark. 2020) (time limitations of Rule 37 apply and are mandatory)
Jackson v. State, 549 S.W.3d 346 (Ark. 2018) (circuit court may not grant relief on an untimely petition under Rule 37)