David Brady v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

JULY 9, 2001

DAVID BRADY

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Response

CR 01-393

PRO SE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK [CIRCUIT COURT OF LEE COUNTY, NO. CR 98-57, HON. HARVEY YATES, JUDGE]

MOTION DENIED

David Brady was found guilty of driving while intoxicated, refusing a breathalyzer test, driving with a suspended license, fleeing, reckless driving, driving without a seatbelt, driving without a vehicle license, and driving with no liability insurance. He was sentenced to one day in jail with credit for time served, his driver's license was suspended for six months, and he was fined $700.

An appeal of the judgment to the court of appeals was perfected, and counsel for Brady filed a brief and motion to be relieved on the ground that the appeal was wholly without merit pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(j)(1) and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The court of appeals affirmed. Brady v. State, CACR 99-992 (March 7, 2001).

Brady subsequently filed in his court a pro se petition for review and motion for rule on clerk. Both the petition for review and the motion for rule on clerk pertained to Ark. Sup. Ct.R.4-3(j)(2), which provides that the clerk of the court will provide the appellant with a copy of the brief filed by his attorney so that he may submit within thirty days any points for reversal he wishes the court to consider.

We denied the petition for review, but granted the motion for rule on clerk in part and directed our clerk to provide petitioner with a copy of the full front of the envelope in which the "no merit" brief was mailed to him and the contents of the envelope. Brady v. State, CR 01-393 (May 17, 2001). The material was mailed to petitioner by certified mail along with a copy of our decision on May 17, 2001. The return receipt was duly received from the post office bearing petitioner's signature reflecting that he had received the material on May 22, 2001.

Now before us is petitioner's motion asking that the motion for rule on clerk be reconsidered. He bases the motion for reconsideration not on a claim that he did not receive the material from the clerk, but rather on the fact that on the federal court level the court clerk mails a "Mail Certificate of Clerk" to the addressee with a postmarked copy of the certified return receipt. He complains that he did not receive such a certificate from our clerk and demands one.

The motion for reconsideration is denied. This court does not require a certificate of mailing as the federal court is purported to require. As we directed that certain material be mailed to petitioner and he does not contend that he did not receive it and the return receipt reflects that the material was delivered, there is no ground for reconsideration of the motion for rule on clerk.

Motion denied.