Waimonushun Smith v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT  No.  CR 07-1288 Opinion Delivered  WAIMONUSHUN SMITH Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent  February 14, 2008  PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR 2005-3135, HON. JOHN W. LANGSTON, JUDGE] MOTION DENIED.  PER CURIAM  A jury found petitioner Waimonushun Smith guilty of second degree murder and sentenced  him to 480 months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction.  The Arkansas Court  of  Appeals  affirmed  the  judgment.  Smith  v.  State,  CACR  06­700  (Ark.  App.  Feb.  7,  2007).  Appellant timely filed in the trial court a petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1,  which was denied by an order entered August 29, 2007.  Petitioner filed in the trial court a notice of  appeal as to that order on October 10, 2007.  When the record was tendered to this court, our clerk  correctly declined to file it because the notice of appeal was not timely filed with the circuit clerk.  Petitioner then filed the pro se motion for belated appeal that is before us.  A petitioner has the right to appeal a ruling on a petition for postconviction relief.  See Scott  v. State, 281 Ark. 436, 664 S.W.2d 475 (1984) (per curiam).  However, along with that right goes  the responsibility to timely file a notice of appeal within thirty days of the date the order was entered  in accordance with Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 4(a).  If a petitioner fails to timely file a notice of appeal, he may move this court to file a belated appeal in accordance with Ark. R. App. P.­­Crim. 2(e).  In McDonald v. State, 356 Ark. 106, 146 S.W.3d 883 (2004), this court clarified its treatment  of motions for rule on the clerk and motions for belated appeal.  We said that there are only two  possible reasons for an appeal not to be timely, either the party or attorney filing the appeal is at fault  or there is good reason.  Id. at 116, 146 S.W.3d 891.  If the party believes there is good reason the  appeal was not perfected, the case for good reason can be made in the motion, and this court will  decide whether good reason is present.  Id.  If the petitioner fails to timely file 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 proper procedure.  Garner v. State, 293 Ark. 309, 737 S.W.2d 637 (1987) (per  curiam).  Here, petitioner claims that he placed the notice of appeal in the mail at the prison before  expiration  of  the  thirty­day  period,  and  asserts  that  he  did  not  create  the  situation.    However,  petitioner was responsible to see that the notice of appeal was received by the clerk and timely filed  to perfect the 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).  We have declined to adopt the prison mail­box rule that is accepted in some courts, and which  provides that a pro se inmate files his or her petition at the time the petition is placed in the hands of  prison officials for mailing.  Hamel v. State, 338 Ark. 769, 1 S.W.3d 434 (1999).  An item tendered  to a court is considered tendered on the date it is received and file marked by the clerk, not on the  date it may have been placed in the mail.  Petitioner’s allegations that he mailed the notice of appeal  prior to the expiration of the thirty­day period for filing do not establish good cause for failure to file  the notice of appeal in a timely manner.  See Leavy v. Norris, 324 Ark. 346, 920 S.W.2d 842 (1996) ­2­  (per curiam); Skaggs v. State, 287 Ark. 259, 697 S.W.2d 913 (1985) (per curiam).  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.