Case Title: Mark Thompson v. State of Arkansas

Citation: 

Docket Number: 08-252

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 2008-04-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. 08-252 MARK THOMPSON Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent Opinion Delivered April 10, 2008 PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY, LCV 2007-80, HON. ROBERT H. WYATT, JR., JUDGE] MOTION DENIED. PER CURIAM In 2004, petitioner Mark Thompson entered a plea of guilty to first-degree domestic battering and was sentenced as a habitual offender to 240 months’ imprisonment. In 2007, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court for the county in which he is incarcerated. The circuit court denied the petition in an order entered on October 12, 2007. Petitioner now seeks leave to proceed with a belated appeal from the order pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 2(e). A petitioner has the right to appeal a ruling on a petition for postconviction relief. See Scott v. State, 281 Ark. 436, 664 S.W.2d 475 (1984) (per curiam). However, along with that right goes the responsibility to timely file a notice of appeal within thirty days of the date the order was entered. If a petitioner fails to timely file a 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. Garner v. State, 293 Ark. 309, 737 S.W.2d 637 (1987) (per curiam). The burden lies with 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 does not constitute good cause for the failure to conform 1After filing the instant motion for belated appeal, petitioner requested that a non-file-marked copy of a notice of appeal be appended to the motion. This pleading neither supports nor contradicts petitioner’s argument for granting this motion, and does not affect our decision herein. -2- to the prevailing rules of procedure. Walker v. State, 283 Ark. 339, 676 S.W.2d 460 (1984) (per curiam). Here, petitioner contends that he mailed the notice of appeal in a timely manner pursuant to the prison mailbox rule.1 See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). This court has previously declined to adopt the mailbox rule which provides that a pro se inmate files his or her petition at the time the petition is placed in the hands of prison officials for mailing. 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 file marked by the clerk, not on the date it may have been placed in the mail. See id; Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 4(a); see also Leavy v. Norris, 324 Ark. 346, 920 S.W.2d 842 (1996) (per curiam). It was the sole responsibility of petitioner to perfect the appeal. Sullivan v. State, 301 Ark. 352, 784 S.W.2d 155 (1990) (per curiam). Petitioner has shown no good cause for his failure to comply with proper procedure. Motion denied.