Ronald Robinson v. State of Arkansas

── Ronald Robinson v. State of Arkansas ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: April 29, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 263 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-25-189 RONALD ROBINSON Opinion Delivered April 29, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE POPE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 58CR-21-707] STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE JAMES DUNHAM, APPELLEE JUDGE REVERSED AND REMANDED CINDY GRACE THYER, Judge Ronald Robinson appeals the Pope County Circuit Court’s order dismissing with prejudice his petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1. Robinson asserts that the circuit court erred in dismissing his petition on the ground that it failed to affirmatively assert that he was a prisoner under a sentence of a circuit court. The State concedes error. We agree, and we reverse and remand. Robinson was convicted by a Pope County jury of two counts of second-degree battery, one count of resisting arrest, and one count of disorderly conduct; he was sentenced to a total of twelve years’ imprisonment. This court affirmed his convictions and sentence in Robinson v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 242, 687 S.W.3d 402. Our mandate issued on May 15, 2024, and on July 9, 2024, Robinson filed a timely and verified Rule 37 petition. After stating that “Robinson is an inmate at the Cummins Unit of the [Arkansas Division of Correction],” the petition alleged four separate grounds on which trial counsel purportedly rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Robinson simultaneously filed a motion for leave to file an amended or enlarged Rule 37 petition. That motion also asserted that Robinson was “an inmate at the Cummins Unit of the ADC” and that he was “currently incarcerated.” On December 31, 2024, the circuit court entered an order dismissing Robinson’s Rule 37 petition with prejudice. Although the court acknowledged that the petition was timely, it nonetheless found that “[i]n no part of the Petition does Defendant allege he received any sentence pertaining to his convictions, or that his custody status is related to any convictions of this Circuit Court.” The court reasoned that because relief can be had under Rule 37.1 only by one who is “in custody under sentence of a circuit court,” dismissal of Robinson’s petition was mandated for want of jurisdiction because it made no positive allegation that his convictions resulted in sentences for which he was currently incarcerated. Robinson filed a timely notice of appeal on January 2, 2025, and now argues to this court that the circuit court erred in dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 37.1(a) provides that a “petitioner in custody under sentence of a circuit court claiming a right to be released, or to have a new trial, or to have the original sentence modified” on four enumerated grounds “may file a petition in the court that imposed the sentence, praying that the sentence be vacated or corrected.” Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1(a). The principal purpose of Rule 37 is to avoid unjust incarceration. Bohanan v. State, 336 Ark. 367, 985 S.W.2d 708 (1999). A petitioner seeking postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 37 must be incarcerated in order for the rule’s remedies to be available, and a person who is, for 2 example, on parole or probation is not “in custody” for purposes of Rule 37. Neely v. McCastlain, 2009 Ark. 189, 306 S.W.3d 424. Postconviction relief is routinely denied for persons who are not “in custody.” See Chandler v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 103, 618 S.W.3d 454; Halcomb v. State, 2018 Ark. App.