Watts v. Norris
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
08-1387
Opinion Delivered
April 30, 2009
PRO SE PETITION FOR REHEARING
[CIRCUIT COURT OF CHICOT
COUNTY, CV 2007-48, HON. ROBERT
BYNUM GIBSON, JUDGE]
FRANK WATTS II
Petitioner
v.
LARRY NORRIS, DIRECTOR,
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION, AND MARK CASHION,
WARDEN
Respondents
PETITION FOR REHEARING
TREATED AS MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND DENIED.
PER CURIAM
On March 5, 2007, petitioner Frank Watts II, a prisoner in the custody of the Arkansas
Department of Correction, filed in the circuit court in the county in which he was incarcerated a pro
se petition for writ of habeas corpus. He subsequently filed a motion and amended motion for
“default judgment,” asking that the relief sought be granted on the ground that there had been no
response filed. An order was entered November 26, 2007, granting a default judgment, but the order
was set aside by the court in an order entered January 4, 2008. In a separate order, also entered on
January 4, 2008, the habeas petition was dismissed. An amended order dismissing the petition was
entered on January 23, 2008. Petitioner timely filed notices of appeal from the two orders that
pertained to the habeas petition, but he did not tender the record to this court until December 1, 2008,
which was not within ninety days of the date of the notice of appeal as required by Arkansas Rule
of Appellate Procedure–Civil 5(a). Petitioner filed in this court a motion, amended motion, and
renewed motion for belated appeal. The motion, amended motion, and renewed motion all sought
to lodge the record belatedly with respect to the two habeas orders and leave to proceed with a
belated appeal of the January 4, 2008, order that set aside the order granting a default judgment.
As a notice of appeal was timely filed on each of the two habeas orders, we treated the
motion as a motion for rule on clerk to lodge the record with respect to those orders. As to the
January 4, 2008, order setting aside the default judgment, we treated the motion as a motion for
belated appeal. We denied the relief requested. Watts v. Norris, 08-1384 (Ark. Feb. 26, 2009) (per
curiam). Petitioner now brings this pro se request for rehearing of that decision, which we consider
as a motion for reconsideration inasmuch as there is no provision in our rules for a petition for
rehearing to be filed when a motion is denied.
In the request for reconsideration, petitioner reiterates the arguments raised in the motion,
amended motion, and renewed motion for belated appeal. He does not demonstrate that there were
specific errors of law or fact in the opinion.
Petition for rehearing 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.
