Case Title: Herman Folk, Sr. v. State of Arkansas

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR06-61

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 2006-03-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 06­61 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION HERMAN FOLK, SR. Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent Opinion Delivered March 9, 2006 PRO SE MOTIONS FOR BELATED APPEAL AND TO AMEND [DREW COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, CR 97­237­2, HON. SAMUEL B. POPE, JUDGE] MOTION TO AMEND GRANTED; MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL DENIED PER CURIAM Herman Folk, Sr., is an inmate in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Correction. On February 10, 2005, through counsel, Mr. Folk filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court of Drew County. The petition was denied by an order entered on February 17, 2005. Mr. Folk has now filed a pro se motion in this court requesting leave to file a belated appeal of that order. Petitioner Folk alleges inhis motionthat his attorney, Sara M. Sawyer, now Sara M. Harness, refused to appeal the order unless and until he paid her the quoted fee. In his motion to amend, petitioner seeks to correct his statement in his motion for belated appeal that alleged Ms. Harness filed a notice of appeal, asserting that the statement should have been that Ms. Harness did not file a notice of appeal. As the amendment is relevant, we grant the motion to amend. A petitioner has the right to appeal a ruling on a petition for postconviction relief, which includes the dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Scott v. State, 281 Ark. 436, 664 S.W.2d 475 (1984) (per curiam). However, along with that right, goes the responsibility to file a timely notice of appeal within thirty days of the date the order was entered in accordance with Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 4 (a). 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. Garner v. State, 293 Ark. 309, 737 S.W.2d 637 (1987) (per curiam). ­2­ Ms. Harness has filed an affidavit indicating that she was instructed by petitioner that he did not wish to appeal the order. Because appellant has alleged that he instructed Ms. Harness to file an appeal, but Ms. Harness disputes that allegation, we would ordinarily remand for findings of fact by the circuit court on the issue. Under Ark. R. App. P.–Crim.16(a), once an attorney represents a defendant in a matter of postconviction relief, the attorney is obligated to continue representing the defendant until relieved by the appropriate court. See Hammon v. State, 347 Ark. 267, 65 S.W.3d 853 (2002). Counsel is not entitled to abandon an appeal solely because he or she was not paid. Miller v. State, 299 Ark. 548, 775 S.W.2d 79 (1989) (per curiam). But, a defendant may waive the right to appeal by his or her failure to inform counsel of the desire to appeal within the time allowed. Strom v. State, 348 Ark. 610, 74 S.W.3d 233 (2002). The question of whether or not petitioner informed counsel that he wished to appeal would be the determining issue. However, it is clear that remand is not appropriate here, as the petitioner cannot prevail. This court has consistentlyheld that an appealofthe denial of postconviction relief, including an appeal from an order that denied a petition for writ of habeas corpus, will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Pardue v. State, 338 Ark. 606, 999 S.W.2d 198 (1999) (per curiam); Seaton v. State, 324 Ark. 236, 920 S.W.2d 13 (1996) (per curiam); Harris v. State, 318 Ark. 599, 887 S.W.2d 514 (1994) (per curiam); Reed v. State, 317 Ark. 286, 878 S.W.2d 376 (1994) (per curiam). Here, petitioner cannot prevail because he is not incarcerated in Drew County. A circuit court does not have jurisdiction to release on a writ of habeas corpus a prisoner not in custody in that court’s jurisdiction. Pardue, 338 Ark. at 607­608, 999 S.W.2d at 199 (citing Mackey v. Lockhart, 307 Ark. 321, 819 S.W.2d 702 (1991)). In this case, the circuit court does not have jurisdictionto release petitioner, as he is not now in custodywithin the court’s jurisdiction. That petitioner mayhave beenincustodyin Drew Countyat the time the petition for writ ofhabeas corpus was filed, does not confer jurisdiction on the circuit court to issue the writ when he is not currently in custodyin that county. Even were petitioner successful in an appeal of the petition, the court could ­3­ not grant the remedy requested. Accordingly, we deny appellant’s motion for belated appeal. Motion to amend granted; motion for belated appeal denied.