Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 385 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-25-261 Opinion Delivered September 2, 2026 REGINALD FEATHERSTON APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE HEMPSTEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 29CR-20-186] STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE JOE C. SHORT, JUDGE APPELLEE REVERSED AND REMANDED MIKE MURPHY, Judge Appellant Reginald Featherston was convicted by a Hempstead County jury of one count of possession of methamphetamine with purpose to deliver, a Class A felony, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class D felony. Featherston appealed and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of his motion for new trial. We affirmed that appeal in Featherston v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 207, 687 S.W.3d 150. After the mandate was issued, Featherston filed a pro se verified petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. Including exhibits, it was twenty-two pages long. On June 22, 2024, the circuit court dismissed Featherston’s petition, explaining that “[t]he petition with the exhibits attached is in excess of ten (10) pages and must be dismissed.” Featherston appealed. On appeal he argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing his petition. We agree. Rule 37.1(b) provides that a petition for postconviction relief “shall not exceed ten pages.” When a petitioner timely files a verified petition that does not comply with Rule 37.1(b), the circuit court has the discretion to act on the merits of the petition, dismiss it without prejudice to filing a petition that conforms to Rule 37.1(b), or dismiss the petition. Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1(b) (“The circuit court or appellate court may dismiss any petition that fails to comply with this subsection.” (emphasis added)); Standridge v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 608. Exhibits are counted for purposes of determining compliance with the ten-page limitation. Fields v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 213, 599 S.W.3d 351. When a circuit court dismisses a Rule 37 petition for failure to comply with the page limitation in Rule 37.1(b), we review the dismissal for an abuse of discretion. Murphy v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 109, at 4. We generally presume that the circuit court considered the appropriate factors in reaching a discretionary decision, but that presumption applies only in the absence of a showing to the contrary. Britt v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 58, at 5–6, 639 S.W.3d 919, 922. We will not make that presumption when the circuit court’s stated reasons demonstrate that it acted under an erroneous understanding of the applicable law. Id. Although it is a heavy burden to establish that the circuit court abused or failed to exercise its discretion, reversal is appropriate when the record demonstrates that the court did not exercise the discretion afforded to it. Id. Here, it is apparent that the circuit court misunderstood its discretion regarding overlength petitions when it wrote that Featherston’s petition “must” be dismissed. The circumstances here are similar to those in Britt, 2022 Ark. App. 58, at 5–6, 639 S.W.3d at 2 922. In Britt, the appellant was initially granted a 120-day extension to amend his Rule 37 petition. Two weeks before the amended petition was due, Britt filed another motion to amend seeking an additional ninety days to hire a DNA expert. The circuit court denied the request, stating that “because the time limitations set forth by Rule 37 are jurisdictional in nature, this Court cannot extend Petitioner’s time to amend his petition.” Id. at 5, 639 S.W.3d at 922. This reasoning, however, demonstrates a misunderstanding of the applicable rule, which provides that if a court had not yet ruled on a Rule 37 petition, “the petition may be amended with leave of the court.” Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(e) (emphasis added). We reversed and remanded, explaining that the court mistakenly believed it did not have discretion and therefore abused its discretion by not exercising it. Our remand was limited to directing the court only to exercise its discretion. The same problem is present here. The circuit court mistakenly thought the petition “must” be dismissed, but Rule 37.1(b) provides that a noncompliant petition “may” be dismissed. We therefore reverse and remand for the circuit court to exercise its discretion. Featherston makes a few additional arguments throughout his pro se brief, which we will summarize. First, he argues that his petition was not overlength: it was seven pages before exhibits. He is mistaken because exhibits are included in the ten-page limit. Fields v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 213, 599 S.W.3d 351. The circuit court correctly concluded that Featherston’s filing exceeded the ten-page limit. Second, Featherston argues that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his petition. Because we reverse and remand for the circuit court to exercise its discretion under Rule 37.1(b), we need not address Featherston’s 3 remaining argument concerning an evidentiary hearing. Reversed and remanded. KLAPPENBACH, C.J., and HARRISON, J., agree. Reginald Featherston, pro se appellant. Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: David L. Eanes, Jr., Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 4