Roberts v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. 130
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR10-1068
KARL D. ROBERTS,
Opinion Delivered
March 31, 2011
APPELLANT,
MOTION TO FILE BELATED
BRIEF
VS.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE,
GRANTED.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Karl D. Roberts, by and through his attorney, Jenniffer Horan, moves this
court to file a belated brief. Roberts’s brief, after a forty-five day final extension, was due on
January 6, 2011. On January 6, 2011, Roberts timely tendered a noncomplying brief along
with a motion to file an enlarged brief. On January 27, 2011, that motion was granted in part
and denied in part. He then tendered his brief on January 31, 2011, at which time he filed a
motion to file belated brief. On February 9, 2011, the motion was denied without prejudice
for noncompliance with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-1. Roberts then filed a motion for
clarification on February 11, 2011, which this court granted on March 3, 2011, referring
counsel to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-1(a) font size and type. He then tendered his
corrected brief to this court’s clerk on March 7, 2011, at which time he filed the instant
motion.
We will accept a criminal appellant’s belated brief to prevent an appeal from being
aborted. See Stewart v. State, 319 Ark 242, 889 S.W.2d 771 (1995). However, good cause
Cite as 2011 Ark. 130
must be shown to grant the motion. See, e.g., Strom v. State, 356 Ark. 224, 147 S.W.3d 689
(2004) (per curiam) (holding that appellate counsel’s admitted failure to timely file the brief
constituted good cause to grant motion for belated brief); Brown v. State, 347 Ark. 362, 64
S.W.3d 274 (2002) (per curiam) (holding that attorney’s admitted error was good cause to
grant the motion); James v. State, 329 Ark. 58, 945 S.W.2d 941 (1997) (per curiam).
Here, Ms. Horan states in the motion that Roberts was sentenced to death and appeals
from the denial of Rule 37 relief. In the motion to file an enlarged brief that was previously
filed with this court, Ms. Horan’s co-counsel, Josh Lee, stated that all of the issues presented
in Roberts’s Rule 37 petition were meritorious “in that each could prevail at some stage of
Mr. Roberts’s case.” Mr. Lee further stated in that motion that counsel, in good faith, made
an earnest effort to distill each claim to its clearest form, but simply could not comply with
the page limitation. The motion that is now before this court states that “on March 3, 2011
counsel submitted and obtained approval of a compliant typeface from the clerk of the court.”
We have been resolute that criminal cases involving the death penalty will be treated
with unique attention. See, e.g., Robbins v. State, 353 Ark. 556, 561, 114 S.W.3d 217, 220
(2003) (“There is no question but that the death penalty is a unique punishment that demands
unique attention to procedural safeguards.”). To that end, we have established specific criteria
for the appointment of qualified and competent counsel to represent indigent defendants
under a sentence of death in postconviction matters. See Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.5; Lee v. State,
367 Ark. 84, 238 S.W.3d 52 (2006).
2
Cite as 2011 Ark. 130
For the reasons set forth by Ms. Horan and because this case is one involving the death
penalty, we hold that good cause to grant the motion has been shown. We, therefore, grant
Roberts’s motion to file belated brief.
Motion granted.
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.
