Douglas v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. 427
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
09-437
Opinion Delivered
MICHAEL L. DOUGLAS, $553.00 IN
U.S. CURRENCY, 1992 LINCOLN
TOWN CAR VIN
1LNLM81WXNY673286 AND
MOTOROLA CELL PHONE
Petitioners
September 17, 2009
PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED
APPEAL OR MOTION FOR RULE ON
CLERK [CIRCUIT COURT OF DREW
COUNTY, CV 2006-152, HON. BYNUM
GIBSON, JUDGE]
MOTION TREATED AS MOTION FOR
BELATED APPEAL AND DENIED.
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
PER CURIAM
Now before us is a pro se motion for belated appeal or motion for rule on clerk filed by
petitioner Michael L. Douglas in this court on April 27, 2009. Therein, petitioner seeks permission
to proceed with an appeal from an agreed order. The order was entered on January 31, 2007, in a
civil forfeiture proceeding captioned State of Arkansas v. Michael L. Douglas, $553.00 in U.S.
Currency, 1992 Lincoln Town Car VIN 1LNLM81WXNY673286 and a Motorola Cell Phone, Drew
County Case No. CV 2006-152. Attorney Kenneth Johnson signed the document on behalf of
petitioner which recited that the parties agreed to a certain disposition of the items in question.
In the motion for belated appeal or rule on clerk, petitioner maintains that Johnson was not
representing petitioner at that time as Johnson had withdrawn as counsel for petitioner. He further
challenges proper service of process by the plaintiff State of Arkansas in the forfeiture cause of
Cite as 2009 Ark. 427
action pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
The motion is treated as a motion for belated appeal as no notice of appeal was filed in the
trial court. See Holland v. State, 358 Ark. 366, 190 S.W.3d 904 (2004) (per curiam) (citing Johnson
v. State, 342 Ark. 709, 30 S.W.3d 715 (2000)). For the reasons stated herein, the motion is denied.
Forfeiture matters arising from criminal cases are considered in rem civil actions. State v.
One 1993 Toyota Camry, 333 Ark. 503, 969 S.W.2d 663 (1998). Our rules of civil procedure do
not provide for a belated appeal in civil cases. See Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 4; Butcher v. State, 345
Ark. 222, 45 S.W.3d 378 (2001) (per curiam). Thus, petitioner could not seek a belated appeal from
an order or judgment entered in a civil forfeiture case.
Petitioner also contends that Johnson was not representing petitioner in the forfeiture matter,
or at least when the agreed order was signed by Johnson, and that service of process in the case was
defective under Civil Procedure Rule 4. Without commenting on the validity of petitioner’s claims,
his remedy lies in the circuit court where the order was entered and not in an appellate court. See
e.g. Shotzman v. Berumen, 363 Ark. 215, 213 S.W.3d 13 (2005) (citing Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.
v. Campbell, 315 Ark. 136, 865 S.W.2d 643 (1993)).
Motion treated as motion for belated appeal and 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.
