Richard Alan Davis v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

May 27, 2004

RICHARD ALAN DAVIS

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 04-85

PRO SE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL OF POSTCONVICTION ORDER [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CR 87-1540, HON. SAMUEL A. PERRONI, SPECIAL JUDGE]

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DISMISSED

Per Curiam

On March 30, 1988, judgment was entered reflecting that Richard Alan Davis had been found guilty of capital murder, aggravated robbery, and theft of property. Sentences of life imprisonment without parole, life imprisonment, and thirty years' imprisonment were imposed, respectively.1

In 1990, Davis filed in the trial court a petition for postconviction relief, challenging the convictions for aggravated robbery and theft of property as violating the constitutional provision forbidding double jeopardy on the ground that those convictions were lesser included offenses of capital murder. Petitioner Davis also argued that the evidence to sustain the conviction for capital murder was insufficient. The petition was granted with respect to the double jeopardy claim and the convictions for aggravated robbery and theft of property were set aside in an order entered January 29, 1991.

On January 23, 2004, Davis sought to proceed with a belated appeal of the January 29, 1991, order. Because the motion for belated appeal was not timely filed pursuant to of the Rules of Appellate Procedure--Criminal Rule 2(2), it was dismissed. Davis v. State, CR 04-85 (Ark. March 4, 2004). Davis now asks that we reconsider the motion.

As set out in the original decision, the motion for belated appeal was filed by petitioner on January 23, 2004, which was approximately thirteen years after the June 29, 1991, order was entered. Belated appeals in postconviction matters are governed by Rule 2(2), which provides

in pertinent part that "no motion for belated appeal shall be entertained by the Supreme Court unless application has been made to the Supreme Court within eighteen (18) months of the date of entry of ...the order denying postconviction relief...." Petitioner did not diligently pursue his remedy pursuant to Rule 2(2) and thus waived his right to appeal from the order. There is no cause to revisit the motion for belated appeal.

Motion for reconsideration dismissed.

1 No appeal was taken from the judgment. In 2000, Davis filed a motion for belated appeal from the judgment in this court, which was denied as untimely filed. Davis v. State, CR 00-899 (Ark. January 18, 2001) (per curiam).