Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Postconviction Rule 37 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arkansas Supreme Court affirms denial of Jeffery Workman’s postconviction petition as untimely
Summary
The court held that a Rule 37.1 petition filed 120 days after the appellate mandate was procedurally barred because Arkansas Rule 37.2(c)(ii) requires filing within 60 days; equitable-tolling arguments were rejected.
The Arkansas Supreme Court on Sept. 25, 2025, affirmed a Sebastian County Circuit Court order denying pro se petitioner Jeffery Allen Workman’s petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1, finding the petition untimely and procedurally barred. Associate Justice Shawn A. Womack wrote the opinion, with Special Justice Jim F. Andrews, Jr., joining; Justice Bronni did not participate.
Workman was convicted by a jury of first‑degree murder, aggravated residential burglary and second‑degree battery and was sentenced as an habitual offender to two life sentences and an additional 180 months’ imprisonment. This court affirmed those convictions in Workman v. State, 2023 Ark. 183; the appellate mandate issued Dec. 28, 2023.
The court said Rule 37.2(c)(ii) requires a petition under Rule 37.1 to be filed within 60 days of issuance of the appellate mandate. The opinion states Workman’s Rule 37.1 petition was filed 120 days after the mandate, and because the Rule’s time limits are mandatory the trial court may not grant relief on an untimely petition. The court affirmed the trial court’s procedural‑bar ruling accordingly.
The opinion recounts the arguments Workman raised in support of equitable tolling and other relief — that he was not informed the mandate had issued, that he lacked a complete trial transcript, that incarceration delayed his filing, that he was denied due process because the trial court did not allow a reply to the State’s response, that no evidentiary hearing was held, that federal‑court equitable‑tolling examples support relief, that the evidence at trial was insufficient, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The court rejected those arguments as insufficient to overcome the procedural bar created by the late filing, citing precedent that the petitioner bears responsibility for determining when the mandate issues.
The opinion cites multiple Arkansas decisions and authorities in support of its analysis, including O’Brien v. State, 339 Ark. 138; Woodruff v. State, 2024 Ark. 13 (noting the effective date for the time limitations); Maxwell v. State, 298 Ark. 329; Gardner v. State, 2017 Ark. 230; and Coakley v. State, 2021 Ark. 32. The opinion concludes that because Workman failed to comply with Rule 37.2(c)(ii)’s deadline, the petition was procedurally barred and relief could not be granted.
The State was represented by Tim Griffin, Arkansas Attorney General, through Assistant Attorney General Jacob Jones. The opinion does not direct any further proceedings on the petition; the denial stands as affirmed by the Supreme Court.
