Davis v. State (Majority)

Annotate this Case

Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to aggravated robbery in two separate criminal cases, for which he was sentenced as a habitual offender to 360 months' imprisonment in each case. Petitioner subsequently filed in the circuit court a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis, contending that the Arkansas Department of Correction miscalculated his parole-eligibility date. The circuit court dismissed the petition, and the Supreme Court dismissed Petitioner's appeal. Petitioner subsequently tendered an untimely motion for reconsideration, which was returned to him. Petitioner thereafter filed a motion for leave to file his motion for reconsideration belatedly. The Supreme Court denied the motion, concluding that Petitioner asserted no provision or rule that would allow him to file a belated motion for reconsideration.

Download PDF

Cite as 2012 Ark. 340 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR 12-169 Opinion Delivered September ANDREW DAVIS APPELLANT V. 20, 2012 PRO SE MOTION TO FILE BELATED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [DESHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CR 06-33, CR 06-34, HON. SAM POPE, JUDGE] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE MOTION DENIED. PER CURIAM Petitioner Andrew Davis entered a plea of guilty to aggravated robbery in two separate criminal cases in the Desha County Circuit Court, for which he was sentenced as a habitual offender to 360 months imprisonment in each case. After the judgment was entered, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se motion to correct a clerical mistake in the judgment-and-commitment order, contending that the Arkansas Department of Correction ( ADC ) had miscalculated his parole-eligibility date. The motion was denied, and appellant appealed from the order. This court affirmed. Davis v. State, CR 08-285 (Ark. Oct. 2, 2008) (unpublished per curiam). On January 12, 2012, petitioner filed in the circuit court a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis, in which he again contended that the ADC had miscalculated his parole-eligibility date. The circuit court dismissed the petition, and this court dismissed his appeal from the circuit court s order. Davis v. State, 2012 Ark. 228 (per curiam). On June 13, 2012, twenty days after this court dismissed his appeal, petitioner tendered an untimely Cite as 2012 Ark. 340 motion for reconsideration, which was returned to him.1 Now before us is petitioner s motion for leave to file his motion for reconsideration belatedly. We have repeatedly held that 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. Davis v. State, 2012 Ark. 70 (per curiam); Ross v. State, 2011 Ark. 270 (per curiam); Marshall v. State, 2009 Ark. 420 (per curiam); Peterson v. State, 289 Ark. 452, 711 S.W.2d 830 (1986) (per curiam). Petitioner s motion asserts that he followed ADC mailroom procedures, that an ADC sergeant mailed petitioner s original motion for reconsideration on June 8, and that petitioner relied on the Mail Box Rule for his conclusion that his motion was considered filed as of the date it was place in the prison mail. This argument is unavailing; this court has never adopted the prison mailbox rule. See Ester v. State, 2009 Ark. 442 (per curiam) (citing Hamel v. State, 338 Ark. 769, 1 S.W.3d 434 (1999)). An item tendered to a court is considered filed on the date it is received by the clerk, not on the date it may have been placed in the mail. Id. We also note that there is no provision in the prevailing rules of procedure for filing a belated motion for reconsideration. See, e.g., Gray v. State, 2009 Ark. 419 (per curiam). Eighteen days has proven to provide ample opportunity for a party to assert any ground for reconsideration of this court s decision on any motion or petition. See id. Motion denied. BROWN, J., not participating. 1 Pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 2-1(g) (2012), a motion for reconsideration must be filed within eighteen days of the date that this court acts on a matter. See Gray v. State, 2009 Ark. 419 (per curiam). 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.