Case Title: Herbert L. Williams v. State of Arkansas

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR02-669

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 2002-10-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION PER CURIAM OCTOBER 31, 2002 HERBERT L. WILLIAMS Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent CR 02-669 PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF NEVADA COUNTY, CR-95-65, HON. JAMES HOUSTON GUNTER, JR.] MOTION DENIED In 1996, Herbert L. Williams pled guilty in Nevada County Circuit Court to murder in the first degree and felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to a total of seventy-two years' imprisonment. His subsequent pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37 was denied. Williams failed to timely appeal the denial, and we denied him permission to proceed with a belated appeal. Williams v. State, CR 97-299 (Ark. June 30, 1997)(unpublished). On April 11, 2002, Williams filed a pro se petition "for writ of error coram nobis" that sought to vacate the judgment on allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The circuit court treated the petition as one seeking postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 37, and denied it on April 18, 2002. Williams then attempted to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the clerk of the court on May 1, 2002, but he tendered it without a record. In addition, he incorrectly noted in his petition that the circuit court denied his petition on March 18, 2002, instead of the correct date of April 18, 2002. In a letter dated May 2, 2002, Williams was informed that his petition for writ of certiorari had been tendered because it could not be filed without leave of the court as it was received more than thirty days from March 18, 2002, the incorrect date stated by Williams as the date of circuit court's order of denial. See Skinner v. State, 344 Ark. 184, 186, 40 S.W.3d 269, 270 (2001). Williams was further informed that if he desired to file a motion for leave to file a belated petition for writ of certiorari that he would need to submit certified copies of his judgment of conviction, his petition for writ of error coram nobis, and the circuit court's order of denial. On May 15, 2002, Williams attempted to file a second petition for writ of certiorari without a certified record. He did correct his prior mistake regarding the date of circuit court's order of denial. Again notified by letter that his petition was being tendered because it lacked a certified record. In the letter, the change in the date of the order of denial was noted. Williams untimely tendered the certified record beyond the thirty-day filing period allowed for filing a petition for writ of certiorari on June 6, 2002. See Skinner, 344 Ark. at 186, 40 S.W.3d at 270. He now seeks leave to proceed with a belated appeal of the circuit court's order of denial. We treat it as a motion to file a belated petition for writ of certiorari as Williams' petition was denied prior to our decision in Magby v. State, 348 Ark. 415, 72 S.W.3d 508 (2002)(per curiam). In Magby we held that the review of all orders granting or denying coram nobis relief entered on or after April 25, 2002, would be by appeal rather than by writ of certiorari. Id. Williams contends that he should be permitted to proceed with an appeal because he twice attempted to file with this court, prior to the thirty-day period allowed for filing a notice of appeal, a petition for writ of certiorari in regards to the denial of his "petition for writ of error coram nobis." He also states that he filed the certified record, albeit untimely, on June 6, 2002. A petitioner has the right to seek review of a ruling on a petition for postconviction relief. Skinner, 344 Ark. at 186, 40 S.W.3d at 270. With that right, however, goes the responsibility to abide by the rules of procedure. Id. If a petitioner fails to follow procedural rules, the burden is on the petitioner to make a showing of good cause for the failure to comply with proper procedure. Id. The fact that a petitioner is proceeding pro se or is incarcerated does not in itself constitute good cause for the failure to conform to procedure. Id. It is not the responsibility of the circuit clerk or anyone other than the party seeking review to perfect the request for review, whether it be by appeal or by certiorari. See id. As in Skinner, Williams did not timely pursue the procedural course available to him and has not established that there was good cause for his failure to act. Motion denied.