Nutt v. State (Per Curiam)

Annotate this Case

Petitioner filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief challenging a judgment of conviction entered against him. The trial court dismissed the petition. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal, which was not timely filed. Petitioner subsequently sought leave in the Supreme Court to proceed with a belated appeal of the order. The Supreme Court dismissed the motion because Petitioner's postconviction petition was not verified in accordance with Ark. R. Civ. P. 37.1(c), and as a result, the petition was not properly before the trial court. Petitioner sought rehearing or reconsideration of that decision. The Supreme Court treated the petition as a motion for reconsideration and denied the motion because Petitioner did not put forth any issues regarding an error of law or fact in the opinion denying his motion for belated appeal.

Download PDF

Cite as 2015 Ark. 182 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-14-1125 Opinion Delivered April 23, 2015 RYAN NUTT PETITIONER V. STATE OF ARKANSAS RESPONDENT PRO SE PETITION FOR REHEARING OR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL OF MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL OF ORDER AND MOTION FOR INFORMATION ON STATUS OF CASE [PIKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 55CR-11-38] HONORABLE CHARLES A. YEARGAN, JUDGE PETITION TREATED AS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENIED; MOTION FOR INFORMATION ON STATUS OF CASE MOOT. PER CURIAM In 2014, petitioner Ryan Nutt filed in the Pike County Circuit Court an unverified pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2012) in which he challenged the judgment of conviction entered against him in case number 55CR-11-38. The trial court dismissed the petition on May 9, 2014. On December 18, 2014, petitioner filed a notice of appeal, which was not timely filed in accordance with Rule 2(a)(4) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Criminal (2014) inasmuch as it was not filed within thirty days of the date that the petition was dismissed. Petitioner then sought leave in this court to proceed with a belated appeal of the order. We dismissed the motion because his Rule 37.1 petition was not verified in accordance with Rule 37.1(c). Nutt v. State, 2015 Ark. 103 (per curiam). As a result, the petition was not properly before the trial court. Hatton v. State, 2012 Cite as 2015 Ark. 182 Ark. 286 (per curiam). Moreover, we noted that, even if petitioner had filed a properly verified petition, the motion for belated appeal would be subject to denial on the ground that petitioner did not meet his burden of stating good cause for the failure to timely file a notice of appeal. Petitioner now seeks rehearing or reconsideration of that decision. We treat the petition as a motion for reconsideration because it concerns the dismissal of a motion rather than the affirmance of an order or judgment. See Burks v. State, 2013 Ark. 274 (per curiam). A request for rehearing, pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 2-3(g) (2014), should call attention to specific errors of law or fact that the opinion is thought to contain. Edwards v. State, 2014 Ark. 87 (per curiam). In his request for reconsideration, petitioner’s sole argument is that his Rule 37.1 petition had merit and should have been granted. Petitioner does not put forth any issues regarding an error of law or fact in the opinion denying his motion for belated appeal. As such, his motion is denied. Petition treated as motion for reconsideration and denied; motion for information on status of case moot. 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.