Robert Williams, III v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 08-165
Opinion Delivered
March 20, 2008
v.
PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED
APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF
PULASKI COUNTY, CR 2004-1966,
HON. WILLARD PROCTOR, JR.,
JUDGE]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
MOTION DENIED.
ROBERT WILLIAMS, III
Petitioner
PER CURIAM
In 2004, petitioner Robert Williams, III, was found guilty by a jury of simultaneous
possession of drugs and firearms, possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, possession of
phencyclidine, possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, theft by receiving, and being a felon
in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 348 months’ imprisonment.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Williams v. State, 93 Ark. App. 353, 219 S.W.3d 676
(2005).
Subsequently, petitioner timely filed in the trial court a verified pro se petition pursuant to
Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court denied the petition on May 23, 2006. Petitioner, proceeding
pro se, now seeks leave to proceed with a belated appeal of the order.
Belated appeals in criminal cases are governed by Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 2(e). The rule
provides in pertinent part that “no motion for belated appeal shall be entertained by the Supreme
Court unless application has been made to the Supreme Court within eighteen (18) months of the
date of entry of judgment or entry of the order denying postconviction relief from which the appeal
is taken.” Petitioner filed the motion for belated appeal here on February 7, 2008. The eighteenmonth period to file a motion for belated appeal in the case elapsed on November 23, 2007.
It is incumbent upon a petitioner to file a motion for belated appeal in a timely manner
inasmuch as an untimely motion for belated appeal is subject to dismissal. Hayes v. State, 328 Ark.
95, 940 S.W.2d 886 (1997) (per curiam). As petitioner here failed to file the motion within the
period allowed by Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 2(a), the motion is dismissed.
Motion denied.
-2-
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.
