Lessie Smith v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

DECEMBER 20, 2001

LESSIE SMITH

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 01-793

PRO SE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS FOR BELATED APPEAL OF JUDGMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [CIRCUIT COURT OF IZARD COUNTY, NO. CR 00-115, HON. JOHN DAN KEMP, JR., JUDGE]

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED

On May 3, 2001, judgment was entered reflecting that Lessie Smith, an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction, had been found guilty in a bench trial of the offense of possession of a firearm by an incarcerated person. A sentence of 175 months' imprisonment was imposed to be served consecutively to the term of imprisonment Smith was serving when the offense was committed. Smith represented himself at trial.

Smith did not appeal from the judgment, and subsequently filed a motion here seeking to proceed with a belated appeal of the judgment pursuant to Rule 2(e) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure--Criminal, which permits a belated appeal in a criminal case in some instances. He also asked that counsel be appointed to represent him on appeal. We denied the motion for belated appeal and declared the motion for appointment of counsel to be moot. Smith v. State, CR 01-793 (Ark. October 4, 2001) (per curiam). Petitioner now asks that this court reconsider the motions.

In the motion to reconsider, petitioner contends that he is unlearned in the law and thus could not perfect the appeal. He further argues that he had a valid defense to the charge of which he was convicted.

As we noted when the motion for belated appeal was denied, petitioner Smith offered no reason for his failure to file a notice of appeal, except to note that he did not have an attorney at trial. Where the petitioner who is proceeding pro se fails to perfect an appeal, a belated appeal will not be allowed absent a showing by the petitioner of good cause for the failure to comply with proper procedure. Raines v. State, 336 Ark. 49, 983 S.W.2d 424 (1999). Neither having proceeded pro se at trial nor mere unfamiliarity with legal procedure constitutes good cause for not filing a timely notice of appeal and perfecting an appeal. See Leavy v. Norris, 324 Ark. 346, 920 S.W.2d 842 (1996). Appellants, including those proceeding without counsel, are responsible for following procedural rules in perfecting an appeal. Raines, supra. Petitioner's claim that he had a meritorious defense does not excuse his failure to act in accordance with procedural rules. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied.

Motion for reconsideration denied.

Imber, J., not participating.