Alvin Tinkes v. State of Arkansas

Annotate this Case
cr04-878

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

October 7, 2004

ALVIN TINKES

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 04-878

PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF SEVIER COUNTY, NO. CR 2002-26 & 27, HON. CHARLES YEARGAN, JUDGE]

MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL TREATED AS MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK AND DENIED

Per Curiam

In 2001, Alvin Tinkes was found guilty by a jury of manufacturing a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, possession of drug paraphernalia, and aggravated assault. An aggregate sentence of 612 months' imprisonment was imposed. The court of appeals affirmed. Tinkes v. State, CACR 02-476 (Ark. App. April 30, 2003).

Tinkes subsequently filed in the trial court a timely petition pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37.1 seeking to vacate the judgments. The petition was denied after a hearing, and petitioner Tinkes filed a timely notice of appeal. He did not tender the record to this court within ninety days of the date of the notice of appeal as required by Ark. R. App. P.-Civil 5(a).

Now before us is Tinkes's motion for belated appeal of the order. As the notice of appeal was timely, we will treat the motion as a motion for rule on clerk to lodge the record. See Johnson v. State, 342 Ark. 709, 30 S.W.3d 715 ( 2000); see also Muhammed v. State, 330 Ark. 759, 957 S.W.2d 692 (1997).

It is the petitioner who is responsible for tendering the record within the ninety-day period for lodging an appeal pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 5(c). This court has consistently held thatall litigants, including those who proceed pro se, must bear responsibility for conforming to the rules of procedure or demonstrating a good cause for not doing so. Bragg v. State, 297 Ark. 348, 760 S.W.2d 878 (1988); Peterson v. State, 289 Ark. 452, 711 S.W.2d 830 (1986); Walker v. State, 283 Ark. 339, 676 S.W.2d 460 (1984); Thompson v. State, 280 Ark. 163, 655 S.W.2d 424 (1983). The pro se appellant receives no special consideration on appeal. See Gibson v. State, 298 Ark. 43, 764 S.W.2d 617 (1989).

Petitioner here attributes entirely the late tender of the record to the circuit clerk's failure to certify the record in time for him to tender the record to this court in a timely fashion. It is not, however, the responsibility of the circuit clerk, the circuit judge, the court reporter, or anyone other than the pro se party desiring to appeal to perfect the appeal. See Sullivan v. State, 301 Ark. 352, 784 S.W.2d 155 (1990); Bragg, supra.

The purpose of the rule setting time limitations on lodging a record is to eliminate unnecessary delay in the docketing of appeals. We have made it abundantly clear that we expect compliance with the rule so that appeals will proceed as expeditiously as possible. Jacobs v. State, 321 Ark. 561, 906 S.W.2d 670 (1995), citing Alexander v. Beaumont, 275 Ark. 357, 629 S.W.2d 300 (1982). As it was the duty of the petitioner, not the circuit clerk, to tender the record to this court in a timely manner, and he has not demonstrated good cause for his failure to do so, the motion to proceed with the appeal is denied.

Motion for belated appeal treated as motion for rule on clerk and denied.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.