Smith v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 08-1506
Opinion Delivered
SHAUNTE M. SMITH
Petitioner
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
March 19, 2009
PRO SE PETITION TO REMAND OR
FOR PERMISSION TO FILE A
BELATED APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT
OF COLUMBIA COUNTY, CR 2006115, HON. LARRY CHANDLER,
JUDGE]
PETITION TREATED AS MOTION
FOR RULE ON CLERK AND DENIED.
PER CURIAM
In 2007, petitioner Shaunte M. Smith entered negotiated pleas of guilty to first-degree murder
and residential burglary and received an aggregate sentence of 600 months’ incarceration in the
Arkansas Department of Correction. Petitioner timely filed in the trial court a petition for
postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1, which was denied by order
entered October 25, 2007. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on November 15, 2007.
Petitioner has filed in this court a petition requesting remand to the trial court or alternatively
leave to proceed with a belated appeal. As the notice of appeal was timely, we treat the motion as
a motion for rule on clerk to lodge the record. See Ray v. State, 348 Ark. 304, 73 S.W.3d 594 (2002)
(per curiam). The time limit set in Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure--Civil 5(a), as applied
through Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure--Criminal 4(a), requires that the record must be
tendered to this court within ninety days of the date of the notice of appeal, unless the circuit court
granted an extension of time. Here, the record was tendered to our clerk on March 27, 2008, 133
days after the notice of appeal was filed. The record does not reflect any extension of time was
granted.
In the petition in which he seeks to proceed with his appeal, petitioner sets out his objections
to the trial court’s order, stating that (1) he was told by the circuit clerk that the record would be
prepared in time but that it was not, (2)he is not represented by counsel, (3) he takes medication that
sometimes hinders his ability to think, and (4) he is subject to depression and delusion. He avers that
because he presents documents that he claims cast doubt on his competence and sanity, he is entitled
to an appeal.
Petitioner appears to argue that the circuit clerk should be responsible to timely file the
record. It is not, however, the duty of the circuit clerk, or the responsibility of anyone other than the
petitioner, to perfect an appeal. See Sullivan v. State, 301 Ark. 352, 784 S.W.2d 155 (1990) (per
curiam); Bragg v. State, 297 Ark. 348, 760 S.W.2d 878 (1988) (per curiam). Petitioner offers his
asserted incompetence and pro se status as reasons for his inability to comply with our rules, but he
does not offer a specific explanation as to what aspect of his asserted mental problems allowed him
to timely file both his petition for postconviction relief and notice of appeal, but prevented his
compliance with the time requirements to lodge the record. All litigants, including those who
proceed pro se, must bear responsibility for conforming to the rules of procedure or demonstrating
a good cause for not doing so. Peterson v. State, 289 Ark. 452, 711 S.W.2d 830 (1986) (per curiam);
Walker v. State, 283 Ark. 339, 676 S.W.2d 460 (1984) (per curiam); Thompson v. State, 280 Ark.
163, 655 S.W.2d 424 (1983) (per curiam). See also Tarry v. State, 353 Ark. 158, 114 S.W.3d 161
(2003) (per curiam).
The purpose of the rule setting time limitations on lodging a record is to eliminate
-2-
unnecessary delay in the docketing of appeals. We have made it abundantly clear that we expect
compliance with the rule so that appeals will proceed as expeditiously as possible. Jacobs v. State,
321 Ark. 561, 906 S.W.2d 670 (1995) (per curiam) (citing Alexander v. Beaumont, 275 Ark. 357,
629 S.W.2d 300 (1982) (per curiam)). Because petitioner has stated no good cause for the failure
to comply with our rules and timely lodge the record, we deny his motion.
Petition treated as motion for rule on clerk and denied.
-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.
