Keller v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. 368 (unpublished)
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 09-134
Opinion Delivered
June 18, 2009
PRO SE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF
RULE ON CLERK [CIRCUIT COURT
OF SEBASTIAN COUNTY, FORT
SMITH DISTRICT, CR 99-825, HON. J.
MICHAEL FITZHUGH, JUDGE]
CHARLES DERRICK KELLER
Petitioner
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
MOTION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Charles Derrick Keller entered pleas of nolo contendere to charges of possession
of hydrocodone with intent to deliver and possession of marijuana and received suspended
imposition of sentences as to both charges and a $500 fine. Petitioner filed in the trial court a pro
se motion to vacate in which he sought to withdraw his plea and vacate the judgment. The trial court
entered an order that denied the motion as untimely and petitioner timely filed his notice of appeal,
but failed to tender the record within the time limit set in Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure-Civil 5(a), as applied through Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure--Criminal 4(a). Petitioner then
filed in this court a motion for rule on clerk that was denied. Keller v. State, CR 09-134 (Ark. Apr.
16, 2009) (per curiam). He now has filed a motion in which he requests that we reconsider our
decision to deny the motion for rule on clerk.
On December 4, 2008, the trial court entered an order granting an extension of time to file
the appeal in this court until January 12, 2009.1 Petitioner filed a second motion for extension of
time and an order was entered on March 2, 2009, that purported to grant a further extension of time
until February 28, 2009. In his motion for reconsideration, petitioner asserts that he acted in reliance
on this judicial action. Because the extension was not granted until after petitioner tendered the
record, however, petitioner could not possibly have relied upon the trial court’s ineffective extension
of time. Petitioner tendered the record on January 21, 2009, and our clerk correctly declined to lodge
the record.
As we noted in our previous opinion, petitioner acknowledged that the circuit clerk provided
the record to him on January 6, 2009. Petitioner has not shown good cause for the delay in filing the
record until after expiration of the January 12, 2009, deadline. We therefore deny the motion for
reconsideration.
Motion denied.
1
The partial record tendered with this motion for rule on clerk includes a transcription of the
plea hearing and sentencing on the charges contested in the motion to vacate.
-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.
