Frederick Pennington, Jr. v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
FREDERICK PENNINGTON, JR.
Petitioner
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
CR 06-213
Opinion Delivered
June 29, 2006
PRO SE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION
FOR BELATED APPEAL AND
REVIEW OF CERTIFIED RECORD
[CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI
COUNTY, CR 77-1933, CR 77-1934, CR
77-1939, HON. JOHN W. LANGSTON,
JUDGE]
MOTION DENIED
PER CURIAM
In 1978, petitioner Frederick Pennington, Jr. entered a guilty plea to capital felony murder,
first-degree battery, and multiple counts of aggravated robbery, and received an aggregate sentence
of life imprisonment. He filed a pro se pleading in the trial court, in 2005, entitled “New Rule of
Law for Mandamus Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea.” The trial court denied the pleading’s request
for relief and petitioner tendered the record to this court on appeal. Our clerk correctly declined to
lodge the record because no notice of appeal was filed within thirty days from entry of the order, and
we denied petitioner’s motion for belated appeal. Pennington v. State, CR 06-213 (Ark. April 6,
2006) (per curiam).
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying his motion for belated
appeal, which this court also denied. Pennington v. State, CR 06-213 (Ark. May 4, 2006) (per
curiam). Now before us is petitioner’s pleading titled “Motion for Review of Certified Record,” in
which he urges us once again to permit a belated appeal and appears to alternatively argue that we
should review the entire record, whether or not a belated appeal is granted, and grant petitioner a new
trial or modify his sentence. Petitioner further requests a certified copy of the record for a writ of
certiorari review by the United States Supreme Court.
Petitioner’s new motion once again fails to state any good cause to grant a belated appeal.
He argues that he was entitled to have an attorney appointed to him, and, apparently further asserts
that the attorney who should have been appointed would have been responsible for filing a timely
notice of appeal. However, he does not contend that any attorney was ever appointed to represent
him. All litigants, including those who proceed pro se, must bear responsibility for conforming to
the rules of procedure. 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) (per curiam). The pro se appellant receives no special consideration on appeal. Eliott v.
State, 342 Ark. 237, 27 S.W.3d 432 (2000); see Gibson v. State, 298 Ark. 43, 764 S.W.2d 617
(1989). As we noted in our previous decision, petitioner was responsible to perfect his appeal.
To the extent that petitioner would have us conduct an independent review of the record, he
has cited no basis or precedence for such a review. This court will not consider an argument that
presents no citation to authority or convincing argument. Kelly v. State, 350 Ark. 238, 85 S.W.3d
893 (2002).
As for petitioner’s request for a copy of the record, he has provided no showing that the
record is necessary in order to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme
Court. We do not provide a copy of the transcript to facilitate a postconviction proceeding without
-2-
a showing that the record is necessary and that specific anticipated points cannot be properly raised
without access to the transcript. See Thomas v. State, 328 Ark. 753, 945 S.W.2d 939 (1997) (per
curiam). Accordingly, petitioner’s motion is denied.
Motion denied.
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
