FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF [LOGAN COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT, NO. 42BCR-10-15] HONORABLE JERRY
COURTNEY HUDSON GOODSON, Associate Justice.
Troy Jason Patrick Riley was found guilty of rape, a class Y
felony, in August 2011 and was sentenced to 300 months'
imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC).
We affirmed. Riley v. State, 2012 Ark. 462. On
December 18, 2017, Riley filed in the trial court a motion
for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, alleging
that he was entitled to a new trial because the victim
recanted her trial testimony that a rape had occurred at a
"Grissom Place" address. Specifically, Riley's
motion challenges the trial court's jurisdiction as well
as the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
conviction. The trial court denied the motion, finding
that there was sufficient evidence that Riley had raped the
victim at a "Grissom Place" address and that
jurisdiction was not lacking. It is from the denial of relief
from the motion for new trial that Riley brings this appeal.
Now before this court is Riley's motion for extension of
time to file the appellant's brief. We need not address
the merits of the motion because it is clear from the record
that Riley cannot prevail on appeal; therefore, the appeal is
dismissed, rendering the motion moot.
Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.3(b) (2017) provides that
"[a]ll post-trial motions or applications for relief
must be filed within thirty days after the date of entry of
judgment." A motion for new trial must be filed within
thirty days to be timely. See Smith v. State, 301
Ark. 374, 784 S.W.2d 595 (1990). Here, Riley filed his motion
for new trial based on newly discovered evidence more than
six years after entry of his judgment of conviction. Simply
put, Riley's motion for new trial is too late. See
id. Furthermore, Riley has failed to argue that he is
entitled to any other postconviction relief, and as such, he
cannot prevail on appeal. Because we dismiss the appeal, the
motion for extension of time is rendered moot.
dismissed; motion moot.
Josephine Linker Hart, Justice, dissenting.
dissent for the reasons outlined in Gray v. State,
2018 Ark. 79, S.W.3d (Hart, J., dissenting). The only matter
properly before us at this juncture is Mr. Riley's motion
for extension of time to file his brief. This court does not
yet have jurisdiction to rule on the merits of Mr.
In a pro se petition to reinvest
jurisdiction in the circuit court to consider a petition for
writ of error coram nobis, Riley raised the argument that he
was entitled to relief based on the victim's recantation
of her trial testimony, and this court denied the petition,
finding a writ of error coram nobis does not lie for recanted
testimony. See Riley v. State, 2015 Ark. 232 (per
curiam). The record here contains a letter from 2014 from the
victim, which was previously submitted when this court
considered Riley's pro se petition to reinvest
jurisdiction in the trial court, and a sworn affidavit from
the victim dated on September 19, 2016. Riley now contends
more specifically in his motion for a new trial that the
victim recants testimony regarding any sexual activity
occurring at a "Grissom Place" address in
Booneville, Arkansas, located in Logan County and that any
evidence regarding a rape or sexual assault occurred during
one incident at a "506 Rattlesnake" address in
Booneville, Arkansas, which is not in Logan County.
To the extent Riley referenced our
habeas statutes, Arkansas Code Annotated sections 16-112-101
to -123 (Repl. 2016), in his motion for new trial,
Riley's petition would not be properly filed. Riley, who
is currently housed in Texas by agreement between the
Director of the ADC and Texas authorities, filed his motion
for new trial in the Logan County Circuit Court. Any petition
for writ of habeas corpus to effect the release of a prisoner
is properly addressed to the circuit court in which the
prisoner is held in custody, unless the petition is filed
pursuant to Act 1780. See Ark. Code Ann.
§§ 16-112-201 to -208 (Repl. 2016); see also
Dunahue v. Kelley, 2018 Ark. 4, 534 S.W.3d 140. Arkansas
Code Annotated section 16-112-105 (Repl. 2016) requires that
the writ be directed to the person in whose custody the
petitioner is detained. Dunahue, 2018 Ark. 4, 534
S.W.3d 140. Although a circuit court may have subject-matter
jurisdiction to issue the writ, a court does not have
personal jurisdiction to issue and make returnable before
itself a writ of habeas corpus to release a petitioner held
in another county. Id. Riley remains under the
jurisdiction of the director although he is housed in Texas,
and a writ of habeas corpus is returnable in Jefferson
County. Hundley v. ...