Martin v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. 508
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR 09-122
Opinion Delivered
LAWRENCE EDWARD MARTIN
Appellant
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
October 22, 2009
PRO SE MOTIONS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, TO
CORRECT MATTERS, AND TO FILE
BELATED BRIEF AND PRO SE
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS [CIRCUIT COURT OF
PULASKI COUNTY, CR 94-2146, HON.
WILLARD PROCTOR, JR., JUDGE]
ORDER AFFIRMED; MOTION TO
FILE BELATED BRIEF DENIED;
MOTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND TO CORRECT
MATTERS MOOT; PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS MOOT.
PER CURIAM
In 1995, appellant Lawrence Edward Martin was found guilty by a jury of capital murder and
sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. We affirmed. Martin v. State, 328 Ark. 420, 944 S.W.2d
512 (1997). In 2008, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The
trial court dismissed the petition, and appellant has lodged a pro se appeal here from the order.
Now before us is appellant’s motion to file a belated brief. The brief-in-chief in this appeal was
initially due to be filed no later than March 18, 2009. On March 17, 2009, appellant tendered a brief that
was returned to him for correction because the addendum failed to comply with Arkansas Supreme
Court Rule 4-7(c)(1)(C). A corrected brief was due no later than March 31, 2009.
On March 26, 2009, appellant tendered a brief that was returned to him as it was not in proper
Cite as 2009 Ark. 508
form. He was informed that a motion to file a belated brief must accompany any future briefs tendered
to the court. On April 15, 2009, appellant tendered a corrected brief and a motion for belated brief.
These documents were returned to appellant because the addendum in the brief was deficient.
On May 4, 2009, appellant tendered a brief that complied with the rules and filed the instant
motion to file a belated brief. In the motion, he maintains in conclusory fashion that he has been unable
to use the computers and typewriters at the Arkansas Department of Correction facility where he is
housed. He does not indicate, however, that the computers were needed to conduct any specific
research necessary to support a particular argument contained in the brief.
Appellant is required to demonstrate good cause for his failure to timely file his brief. Travis v.
State, 2009 Ark. 242 (per curiam); see also, Robinson v. State, 360 Ark. 307, 200 S.W.3d 905 (2005) (per
curiam). Here, appellant’s brief was returned to him three times for correction, and forty-eight days
elapsed between the time he tendered the initial brief and the time he tendered a conforming brief. Our
rules provide, “If after the opportunity to cure the deficiencies, the appellant fails to file a complying
abstract, addendum and brief within the prescribed time, the trial court’s order may be affirmed for
noncompliance with the Rule.” Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-7(c)(3)(C).
As appellant failed to establish good cause for his brief to be filed belatedly, we deny appellant’s
motion to file a belated brief. The order is affirmed.
Appellant has also filed a pro se motion for the appellee State to produce records that would
demonstrate whether his arrest complied with Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 7.1 and a petition
for writ of mandamus. In the mandamus petition, he asks this court to compel the Pulaski County
Circuit Court Clerk to provide him with a copy of the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in circuit
court. He also has filed a motion and an amended motion seeking to “correct matters” pertaining to
-2-
Cite as 2009 Ark. 508
his request for a copy of the habeas petition. As the order on appeal is affirmed for failure to file a
timely brief, the pleadings are moot.
Order affirmed, motion to file belated brief denied; motions for production and to correct
matters moot; petition for writ of mandamus moot.
-3-
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.
