Sims v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. 96 (unpublished)
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 08-917
Opinion Delivered
2009
ROGER DALE SIMS
Petitioner
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
February 26,
PRO SE MOTION FOR REHEARING
OR CLARIFICATION [CIRCUIT
COURT OF CRAIGHEAD COUNTY,
WESTERN DISTRICT, CR 2001-516,
HON. JOHN N. FOGLEMAN, JUDGE]
MOTION TREATED AS MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Now before us is a pro se motion for rehearing or clarification of the law pertaining to
a decision that we handed down on December 19, 2008, in Sims v. State, CR 08-917 (Ark. Dec.
19, 2008) (per curiam). In that decision, we treated petitioner’s pro se motion to file pleadings
in this court without a certified record as a motion for rule on clerk. In denying the motion for
rule on clerk, we held that it was petitioner’s responsibility to lodge the necessary record on
appeal in order for this court to consider the motions that petitioner tendered to the court.1
In the instant motion for rehearing or clarification, which we treat as a motion for
reconsideration, petitioner maintains that our appellate procedure rules are in conflict with the
case law cited in our decision. He cites Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 4(c) for
the proposition that the circuit court clerk must transmit the record on appeal to this court at
1
Petitioner sought to file in this court pro se motions for belated appeal and for appointment of
counsel, and a pro se petition for writ of certiorari.
Cite as 2009 Ark. 96 (unpublished)
the request of the appealing party. Petitioner claims that this rule is in diametric contradiction
to the holding in Sullivan v. State, 301 Ark. 352, 784 S.W.2d 155 (1990) (per curiam), wherein we
stated that the responsibility to perfect an appeal rests solely with a petitioner, not the circuit
clerk, circuit court or any other person.
The appellate procedure rule cited by petitioner concerns only the record for the
preliminary hearing in this court. As expressly set forth in the rule, such preliminary matters are
limited to motions for dismissal or a stay pending appeal, motions for fixing or reduction of bail
in a criminal matter, motions to proceed in forma pauperis, or motions for any type of intermediate
order. Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 4(c). The relief sought by petitioner did not fit within any of the
enumerated categories. As Criminal Appellate Procedure Rule 4(c) has no applicability to
petitioner’s matter, there is no conflict between Rule 4(c) and Sullivan v. State, supra. Therefore,
petitioner has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that there was some error of fact or
law in the decision handed down on December 19, 2008, that would merit reconsideration of
the denial of the motion for rule on clerk.
Motion treated as motion for reconsideration 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.
