Anthony Hampton v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR 08-1160
Opinion Delivered October 30, 2008
ANTHONY HAMPTON,
APPELLANT,
MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL
VS.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE,
GRANTED.
PER CURIAM
MOTIONS — M OTION FOR BELATED APPEAL — GRANTED WH ERE APPELLANT DEM ONSTRATED GOOD
CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIM ELY FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL. — Where appellant averred that he never
received notice that the circuit court had denied his petition for Rule 37 relief and that he never
received a copy of that order, and the State did not respond and thus did not demonstrate that the
circuit clerk promptly notified appellant of the court’s order, the supreme court held that appellant
demonstrated good cause for his failure to file a timely notice of appeal and granted his motion for
belated appeal.
Clint Miller, for appellant.
No response.
Appellant Anthony Hampton, by and through his attorney Clint Miller, has filed the
instant motion for belated appeal from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief
pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37. Hampton pleaded guilty to one count of
aggravated robbery and one count of theft of property and was sentenced to a term of forty-five
years’ imprisonment.
Hampton subsequently sought and was denied postconviction relief in
Pulaski County Circuit Court.
Hampton appealed the denial of his petition, and this court, in
an unpublished opinion, reversed and remanded the circuit court’s order.
In remanding the
matter, this court ordered the circuit court to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of
law as required by Rule 37.3.
The circuit court subsequently entered an order again denying
Hampton’s request for Rule 37 relief on June 6, 2007.
Hampton filed the instant motion on October 3, 2008, therein requesting leave to file
a belated appeal. In support of his motion, Hampton has attached an affidavit averring that he
never received notice that the circuit court had denied his petition on June 6 and that he never
received a copy of that order. The State has not filed a response.
This court addressed an almost identical situation as the present one in Rutledge v.
State, 355 Ark. 499, 139 S.W.3d 518 (2003) (per curiam), and granted the motion for belated
appeal because good cause was established for doing so. There, the appellant averred that he
never received notice of the denial of his petition for postconviction relief, and the State was
unable to demonstrate that the appellant received prompt notice of the court’s order.
In the
present case, the State has not responded and thus has not demonstrated that the circuit clerk
promptly notified Hampton of the court’s order.
Accordingly, Hampton has demonstrated
good cause for his failure to file a timely notice of appeal, and we grant his motion for belated
appeal.
Motion granted.
-2-
CR 08-1160
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.
