Chambliss v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 09-213
Opinion Delivered
EARNEST CHAMBLISS
Appellant
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
June 25, 2009
PRO SE MOTION TO FILE BELATED
BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF
PULASKI COUNTY, CR 2007-163, CR
2007-177, HON. BARRY A. SIMS,
JUDGE]
MOTION GRANTED.
PER CURIAM
In 2007, appellant Earnest Chambliss was tried on charges in two criminal matters that had
been joined. He was found guilty by a jury of aggravated robbery and theft of property in the first
case, and of the same charges in the second case. With an enhancement for employing a firearm
during the commission of the offenses, appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 672 months’
imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Chambliss v. State, CACR 08-210 (Ark.
App. Oct. 1, 2008).
Subsequently, appellant timely filed in the trial court a verified pro se petition for
postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1. The trial court denied
and dismissed the petition without a hearing, and appellant has filed a pro se appeal here from the
order.
Now before us is appellant’s pro se motion to file a belated brief-in-chief. Appellant timely
submitted a brief that was returned to correct the page numbering and include an addendum as
required by Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-7. Appellant then timely submitted a second brief that
was returned to appellant as the notice of appeal contained in the addendum was not filed-marked.
He filed the instant motion to file a belated brief and tendered the corrected brief on April 24, 2009.
In the motion, appellant contends that he was able to submit a compliant brief only after receiving
the correct document from the circuit court clerk’s office.
Having shown good cause as required under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-7(d)(4),
petitioner’s motion to file a belated brief is granted. The clerk is directed to accept the corrected
brief for filing.
Motion granted.
-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.
