James Al White v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. 84 (unpublished)
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 08-204
Opinion Delivered
JAMES AL WHITE
Appellant
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
February 19, 2009
PRO SE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL
OF APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF
PULASKI COUNTY, CR 2004-4080,
HON. JOHN W. LANGSTON, JUDGE]
MOTION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
A jury found appellant James Al White guilty of exposing another person to Human
Immuno-Deficiency Virus (“HIV”), rape, and fourth-degree sexual assault and sentenced him
to an aggregate term of life plus 432 months’ imprisonment, and we affirmed the judgment.
White v. State, 370 Ark. 284, 259 S.W.3d 410 (2007). The trial court denied appellant’s
petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1. Appellant
lodged an appeal of that order in this court and we dismissed the appeal. White v. State, CR
08-204 (Ark. Oct. 2, 2008) (per curiam). Appellant has now filed a motion in which he
requests this court to reconsider the dismissal of his appeal.
It is not clear on what basis appellant would have this court reconsider its previous
decision. Appellant appears to concede his failure to comply with this court’s procedures,
and simply requests permission to proceed despite that failure. He references a motion filed
Cite as 2009 Ark. 84 (unpublished)
on March 20, 2008, that was discussed in our opinion and a motion for extension of time that
was tendered outside of the required time. He does not state any cause for his failure to
comply with our rules.
We have repeatedly held that all litigants, including those who proceed pro se, must
bear responsibility for conforming to the rules of procedure or demonstrate good cause for
not doing so. Tarry v. State, 346 Ark. 267, 57 S.W.3d 163 (2001) (per curiam). Appellant
has not demonstrated good cause, and we need not reconsider our decision.
Motion denied.
B ROWN, J., not participating.
-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.