546 GRISSO V. STATE [297 Cite as 297 Ark. 546 (1989) 4t is my opinion that this petition should be granted in order that we might at least know the basis of our decision. I cannot agree that Rule 37 is an improper vehicle to attack a sentence in this manner. Billy GRISSO v. STATE of Arkansas CR 88-84 763 S.W.2d 661 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered February 6, 1989 APPEAL & ERROR — COMPLETE FAILURE TO ABSTRACT. — Because of a complete failure to abstract, appellant's appeal, from a denial of Ark. R. Crim. P. 37 relief, was affirmed. Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Fourth Division; John Langston, Judge; affirmed. Appellant, pro se. Steve Clark, Att'y Gen., by: J. Brent Standridge, Asst. Att'y Gen., for appellee. DARRELL HICKMAN, Justice. [1] This appeal, from a denial of Rule 37 relief, is affirmed because of a complete failure to abstract the record. Bryant v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 302, 705 S.W.2d 9 (1986). It also involves an untimely petition filed beyond the three year limit, A.R.Cr.P. Rule 37.2(c), and it is a second petition for postconviction relief. Collins v. State, 280 Ark. 312,657 S.W.2d 546 (1983). Affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.