Oliver v. Hobbs (Per Curiam)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Arkansas Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Arkansas Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
In 2013, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the circuit court denied. No appeal was taken. Petitioner subsequently sought leave to proceed with a belated appeal, contending that he did not file a timely notice of appeal because he was not promptly notified by the circuit clerk that the circuit court’s order had been entered. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that, even if the order was not promptly forwarded to Petitioner, that fact in itself did not constitute good cause for Petitioner’s failure to follow procedure.
Download PDF
Cite as 2014 Ark. 339 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-14-485 Opinion Delivered July 31, 2014 BENJAMIN OLIVER PETITIONER V. RAY HOBBS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION RESPONDENT PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL OF ORDER [LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 39CV-13-4] HONORABLE L.T. SIMES, JUDGE MOTION DENIED. PER CURIAM In 2013, petitioner Benjamin Oliver filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court in Lee County where he is incarcerated.1 The circuit court denied the petition. No appeal was taken, and petitioner now seeks leave to proceed with a belated appeal. Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure Civil 4(a) (2013) requires that a notice of appeal be filed within thirty days of the date an order is entered. Petitioner contends that he did not file a timely notice of appeal because he was not promptly notified by the circuit clerk that the order had been entered. A petitioner has the right to appeal a ruling on a petition for postconviction relief, which includes the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Sillivan v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 88 (per curiam); McDaniel v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 107 (per curiam); Wesley v. Harmon, 2010 Ark. 21 (per 1 As of the date of this opinion, petitioner remains incarcerated at the prison facility in Lee County. Cite as 2014 Ark. 339 curiam); McClain v. Norris, 2009 Ark. 428 (per curiam). If the petitioner fails to file a timely notice of appeal, a belated appeal will not be allowed absent a showing by the petitioner of good cause for the failure to comply with proper procedure. McDaniel, 2013 Ark. 107; Wesley, 2010 Ark. 21; Garner v. State, 293 Ark. 309, 737 S.W.2d 637 (1987) (per curiam). Even if the order was not promptly forwarded to petitioner, that fact in itself does not constitute good cause for petitioner s failure to follow procedure. In contrast to the denial of a petition for postconviction relief under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2013),2 there is no absolute duty imposed in the statute on a judge or clerk to notify a petitioner that a petition for writ of habeas corpus has been denied. Wesley, 2010 Ark. 21; McClain, 2009 Ark. 428; Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-112-101 to -123 (Repl. 2006). Our law imposes a duty on lawyers and litigants to exercise reasonable diligence to keep up with the status of cases. Wesley, 2010 Ark. 21; McClain, 2009 Ark. 428. The pro se litigant receives no special consideration in this regard. Wesley, 2010 Ark. 21; see also Tarry v. State, 346 Ark. 267, 57 S.W.3d 163 (2001) (per curiam). It is not the responsibility of the circuit clerk, or anyone other than the party desiring to appeal, to perfect the appeal. Day v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 189 (per curiam). It was the duty of petitioner to file a timely notice of appeal, and he has not established good cause for his failure to do so. Motion denied. Benjamin Oliver, pro se petitioner. No response. 2 Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.3(d) places an obligation upon the circuit court to promptly mail a copy of the order to the petitioner. 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.
