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Cite as 2009 Ark. 84 (unpublished) ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 08-204 Opinion Delivered JAMES AL WHITE Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee February 19, 2009 PRO SE MOTION FOR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 He references a motion filed Cite as 2009 Ark. 84 (unpublished) on March 20, 2008, that was discussed in our opinion and a motion for extension of time that was tendered outside of the required time.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.