Ronald McJames v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 07-1267
Opinion Delivered
RONALD D. McJAMES
Petitioner
March 20, 2008
PRO SE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [CIRCUIT
COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR
2002-1805]
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
MOTION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Ronald D. McJames brought a motion in this court for rule on clerk under Ark.
Sup. Ct. R. 2-2, in which he contended that our clerk had erroneously refused to file a pro se
pleading tendered as a petition for writ of certiorari. We held that our clerk did not err in refusing
to file petitioner’s petition for writ of certiorari and declined petitioner’s request that we direct the
clerk to accept the petition for filing. McJames v. State, CR 07-1267 (Ark. Jan. 24, 2008) (per
curiam). Petitioner now brings this motion, which he refers to as a “notice of appeal,” although he
asserts error on our part in concluding that our clerk did not err to refuse to file his petition.
Petitioner urges that we reconsider our decision and reach the merits of his petition for writ of
certiorari.
In his new motion, petitioner argues that we have made a mistake in concluding that he had
a remedy other than a writ of certiorari. He bases his argument upon his lack of access to an appeal
because he entered a guilty plea and upon what he alleges is an unfair administrative procedure by
the Arkansas Department of Correction that deprived him of the ability to file a petition under Ark.
R. Crim. P. 37.1 within the mandated time frame. Although petitioner may have been precluded
from bringing a direct appeal or a petition under Rule 37.1 because of his actions, those remedies
were nevertheless available.
It is true that under Ark. R. App. P.--Crim. 1, there is no right to appeal a guilty plea, except
for a conditional plea of guilty premised on an appeal of the denial of a suppression motion pursuant
to Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3. See Seibs v. State, 357 Ark. 331, 166 S.W.3d 16 (2004). Petitioner had
a right to go to trial and have this court review the criminal judgment against him. But, he waived
that right when he entered his plea of guilty. See Smothers v. State, 359 Ark. 55, 194 S.W.3d 206
(2004) (per curiam).
The remedy of postconviction relief under Rule 37.1 was also available to petitioner, had he
filed a meritorious petition within the required time frame. While he claims that he was prevented
from exercising that right through onerous procedures implemented by the Department of Correction,
other inmates routinely pursue relief under Rule 37.1, despite those procedures. Once again, the
remedy was present, and petitioner was only barred from pursuing the remedy as a result of his own
actions or failure to act.
As we indicated in our prior opinion, a criminal defendant has the ability to challenge the
judgment against him through an appeal or postconviction relief under Rule 37.1. Extraordinary
relief is not a substitute for those remedies. See Gran v. Hale, 294 Ark. 563, 745 S.W.2d 129
(1988). Our conclusion that petitioner had other remedies than a writ of certiorari was not in error.
Because petitioner has stated no valid reason to revisit our previous decision on this issue, we deny
his motion for reconsideration.
Motion denied.
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.
