Howard Powell v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

No. CR 05-758

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

HOWARD POWELL

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

Opinion Delivered October 13, 2005

PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL OF ORDER [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR 2002-1558, HON. JOHN LANGSTON, JUDGE]

MOTION DENIED

PER CURIAM

Howard Powell was convicted by a jury of rape, second-degree false imprisonment and second-degree battery. He was sentenced to thirty-two years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Powell v. State, CACR 03-862 (Ark.App. September 1, 2004).

Powell subsequently filed in the trial court a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37.1, which was denied on March 18, 2005. Petitioner Powell did not file a notice of appeal until April 19, 2005, which was not within the thirty-day period allowed for filing a notice of appeal under Rule 2(a)(4) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure-Criminal. He now seeks leave to proceed with a belated appeal of the order.

A petitioner has the right to appeal a ruling on a petition for postconviction relief. Scott v. State, 281 Ark. 436, 664 S.W.2d 475 (1984). With that right, however, goes the responsibility to file a timely notice of appeal, a belated appeal will not be allowed absent a showing by the petitioner of good cause for the failure to comply with the proper procedure. Garner v. State, 293 Ark. 309,737 S.W.2d 637 (1987). The fact that a petitioner is proceeding pro se in itself does not constitute good cause for the failure to conform to the prevailing rules of procedure. Walker v. State, 283 Ark. 339, 676 S.W.2d 460 (1984); Thompson v. State, 280 Ark. 163, 655 S.W.2d 424 (1983); see also Sullivan v. State, 301 Ark. 352, 784 S.W.2d 155 (1990).

Petitioner gives no reason in his motion for belated appeal for his failure to conform to the rules governing the filing of a timely notice of appeal. Thus, without a showing of good cause for the failure, we deny the motion.

Motion denied.