James Hannah v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

No. CR 05-443

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JAMES HANNAH

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

Opinion Delivered June 2, 2005

PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY, CR 2000-106]

MOTION TREATED AS MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK AND DENIED

PER CURIAM

James Hannah, who was incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction, filed a petition to correct an illegal sentence in circuit court in Greene County, contesting the validity of his sentence on a conviction for rape. The petition was denied, and Hannah filed a timely notice of appeal on July 6, 2004. He did not tender the record to this court until April 1, 2005. The record must be tendered within ninety days of the date of the notice of appeal in order to meet the time limit set in Ark. R. App. P.--Civ. 5(a),as applied through Ark. R. App. P.--Crim. 4(a), unless the circuit court granted an extension of time. The ninetieth day in this case was October 4, 2004. No extension was granted.

Now before us is Hannah'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 Ray v. State, 348 Ark. 304, 73 S.W.3d 594 (2002) (citing Johnson v. State, 342 Ark. 709, 30 S.W.3d 715 (2000,) citing Muhammed v. State, 330 Ark. 759, 957 S.W.2d 692 (1997)(per curiam).

In his motion, the petitioner acknowledges that he failed to file for an extension of time. He offers no explanation for the delay, other than that he was acting pro se. A petitioner is responsible for tendering the record within the time allowed by the prevailing rules of procedure. All 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. Peterson v. State, 289 Ark. 452, 711 S.W.2d 830 (1986)(per curiam); Walker v. State, 283 Ark. 339, 676 S.W.2d 460 (1984)(per curiam); Thompson v. State, 280 Ark. 163, 655 S.W.2d 424 (1983)(per curiam). See also Tarry v. State, 353 Ark. 158, 114 S.W.3d 161 (2003). The pro se appellant receives no special consideration on appeal. See Gibson v. State, 298 Ark. 43, 764 S.W.2d 617 (1989).

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)(per curiam). It is not the responsibility of anyone other the petitioner to perfect an appeal. See Sullivan v. State, 301 Ark. 352, 784 S.W.2d 155 (1990)(per curiam); Bragg v. State, 297 Ark. 348, 760 S.W.2d 878 (1988)(per curiam). Petitioner failed to do so and has failed to state a good cause for not tendering the record in a timely manner.

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