Lonnie Hazelwood v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

October 28, 2004

LONNIE HAZELWOOD

Appellant

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Appellee

CR 04-803

PRO SE MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI [CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, WESTERN DISTRICT, NO. CR 95-417, HON. DAVID GOODSON, JUDGE]

MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK DENIED; PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI MOOT

Per Curiam

In 1996, judgment was entered reflecting that Lonnie Hazelwood had been found guilty by a jury of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. An aggregate sentence of forty years' imprisonment was imposed. We affirmed. Hazelwood v. State, 328 Ark. 602, 945 S.W.2d 365 (1997).

More than six years after the judgment was affirmed, Hazelwood filed in the trial court a motion labeled "Motion Pursuant to the Provisions of Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure (2003) Rule 60 to Vacate or Modify the Judgment after Ninety Day Time Limit as also Made Applicable to Criminal Judgments."1 The motion was denied. Hazelwood filed a timely notice of appeal, but he did not tender the record to this court within the ninety-day period allowed for lodging a record under Rule 5(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure-Civil.

Now before us is Hazelwood's motion for rule on clerk seeking to lodge the record belatedly. Petitioner has also filed a petition for writ of certiorari to bring up a complete record.

The motion for rule on clerk is denied. The petition for writ of certiorari is moot.

Petitioner places the entire fault for the late tender of the record on the circuit clerk's office. This court has specifically held that it is not the responsibility of the circuit clerk, circuit court, or anyone other than the appellant to perfect an appeal. See Sullivan v. State, 301 Ark. 352, 784 S.W.2d 155 (1990). Placing blame on the clerk's office does not constitute good cause for petitioner's failure to perfect the appeal.

Motion for rule on clerk denied; petition for writ of certiorari moot.

1 The petition was filed as a challenge to the judgment of conviction in petitioner's criminal case in an apparent attempt to circumvent the time limitations on filing a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37.1.