Robert Jamar Fields v. State of Arkansas

Reason: I attest
to the accuracy
and integrity of
this document
Date: Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 213
2021-06-15 20:
07:04 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
Foxit
PhantomPDF
Version: 9.7.5
DIVISION III
No. CR-19-756

ROBERT JAMAR FIELDS Opinion Delivered: April 8, 2020
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE UNION
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 70CR-17-27]
V.
HONORABLE HAMILTON H.
SINGLETON, JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE DISMISSED

RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge

Robert Jamar Fields appeals the denial of his petition for postconviction relief

pursuant to Rule 37 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. A Union County Circuit

Court jury convicted Fields of one count of aggravated robbery, three counts of aggravated

assault with two child enhancements, one count of terroristic act, and one count of first-

degree battery with a child enhancement. He was sentenced to a total of fifty-four years’

imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction, to be served consecutively. We

affirmed his convictions on direct appeal to this court. See Fields v. State, 2019 Ark. App.

162, 574 S.W.3d 201. Fields now appeals claiming error in the denial of his postconviction

claims by the circuit court. For the following reasons, we dismiss.

On appeal from the denial of his Rule 37 petition, Fields argues that the circuit court

clearly erred by denying all his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and his claim of
actual innocence. Fields also contends that the circuit court abused its discretion by failing

to hold a hearing on the petition, by dismissing his twenty-two-page petition for being

overlength, and by denying his motion to file an overlength petition.

Under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1(b), petitions for postconviction

relief shall not exceed ten pages in length. Specifically, Rule 37(b) provides as follows:

The petition shall state in concise, nonrepetitive, factually specific language,
the grounds upon which it is based. The petition, whether handwritten or typed,
shall be clearly legible, and shall not exceed ten pages of thirty lines per page and
fifteen words per line, with left and right margins of at least one and one-half inches
and upper and lower margins of at least two inches. The circuit court or appellate
court may dismiss any petition that fails to comply with this subsection.

Ark. R. Civ. P. 37.1(b).

The Arkansas Supreme Court has held that the rule limiting petitions to ten pages is

an entirely reasonable restriction on petitioners seeking postconviction relief. E.g., Adams v.

State, 2013 Ark. 174, 427 S.W.3d 63; see Davis v. State, 2010 Ark. 366 (per curiam) (citing

Sanders v. State, 352 Ark. 16, 98 S.W.3d 35 (2003)); Washington v. State, 308 Ark. 322, 823

S.W.2d 900 (1992); Maulding v. State, 299 Ark. 570, 776 S.W.2d 339 (1989). Moreover,

the high court has stated that due process does not require courts to provide an unlimited

opportunity to present postconviction claims or prevent a court from establishing limits on

the number of pages in a petition. Washington, supra. The supreme court has also held that

any exhibits attached to a petition filed under Rule 37 are counted for purposes of

determining whether the petition conforms to the ten-page limitation. Washington, supra.

Here, Fields’s petition was twenty-two pages.

A petitioner under Rule 37.1 may demonstrate that he cannot adequately present his

claims to the court in only ten pages and may request to file a petition longer than ten pages,

2
but the overlength petition may be filed only with the permission of the circuit court. See

Adams, supra; see also Murry v. State, 2011 Ark. 343 (per curiam) (citing Rowbottom v. State,

341 Ark. 33, 13 S.W.3d 904 (2000)). If a petitioner does not receive permission to file an

overlength petition, the petitioner is obliged to proceed in accordance with our rules. Murry,

supra; see also Davis, supra. If the petitioner chooses not to do so, the petitioner must bear

the consequences of his decision to submit an overlength amended petition. Murry, supra.

In the present case, our court’s mandate in Fields’s direct appeal issued on April 2,

2019, and on June 3, Fields’s counsel filed a twenty-two-page petition for postconviction

relief. Counsel then waited over a month—until July 15—to file a motion for permission

to file an overlength petition, in which he noted that the motion was filed because the State

challenged the length of the petition. Fields chose to file a twenty-two-page petition;

accordingly, he must “bear the consequences” of that decision. Id. at 4.

Rule 37.1(b) clearly allows a circuit court to dismiss an overlength petition, stating,

“The circuit court or appellate court may dismiss any petition that fails to comply with this

subsection.” Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by

denying relief on Fields’s ineffective-assistance claims in his overlength petition, and we also

dismiss the appeal under the same rationale.

Dismissed.

VIRDEN and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

Tinsley & Youngdahl, PLLC, by: Jordan B. Tinsley, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Christopher R. Warthen, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

3