Richard Alan Davis v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

No. CR 05-632

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

RICHARD ALAN DAVIS

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

Opinion Delivered October 20, 2005

PRO SE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR 1987-1540, HON. WILLARD PROCTOR, JUDGE]

MOTION DENIED

PER CURIAM

In 1988, Richard Alan Davis was convicted by a jury of capital murder, aggravated robbery and theft of property. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, life imprisonment, and thirty years' imprisonment. No appeal was taken from the judgment.

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. 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.

In 2000, Davis filed a motion for belated appeal of the original judgment of conviction entered in 1988, which was denied as untimely filed. Davis v. State, CR 00-899 (Ark. Jan. 18, 2001) (per curiam).

On January 23, 2004, petitioner filed a second motion for belated appeal of the January 29, 1991, order. Because the motion for belated appeal was not timely filed pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure-Criminal Rule 2(2), it was dismissed. Davis v. State, CR 04-85 (Ark. March 4, 2004) (per curiam). Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Davis v. State, CR 04-85 (Ark. May 27, 2004) (per curiam).

For a reason not evident from the record, an amended judgment was entered in the trial court on March 11, 2005, reflecting the modifications in the judgment made in 1991. Petitioner then sought a belated appeal of the amended judgment, which was denied. Davis v. State, CR 04-85 (Ark. June 30, 2005) (per curiam). Now before us is petitioner's motion for reconsideration. If there were grounds to grant a belated appeal of the amended judgment, petitioner could have raised them in his motion, and we find no good cause stated in the motion for reconsideration to revisit the matter.

Motion denied.