Case Title: Romario V. Waller v. State of Arkansas

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR05-426

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 2005-06-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 05-426 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION ROMARIO V. WALLER Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent Opinion Delivered June 2, 2005 PRO SE MOTION TO FILE BELATED APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF UNION COUNTY, CR 95-545, CR 95-627, CR 96-38, HON. HAMILTON H. SINGLETON, JUDGE] MOTION TREATED AS MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK AND DENIED PER CURIAM On June 24, 1996, judgment was entered reflecting that Petitioner Romario V. Waller had pleaded guilty to murder in the first degree for which a sentence of forty-years' imprisonment was imposed. Imposition of an additional five years' imprisonment was suspended.1 Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a renewed motion for summary judgment, which were denied. Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal on November 18, 2004. He did not tender the record to this court until April 4, 2005, which was not within the time limit set to tender a record pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.-Civil 5(a). The rule requires that the record be tendered within ninety days of the date of the notice of appeal, unless the circuit court granted an extension of time to lodge the record. Petitioner tendered the record on the 137th day following the notice of appeal. The record tendered by petitioner reflects two motions requesting extensions of time to lodge the record; however, it does not appear that either motion was granted. Now before us is petitioner's motion for belated appeal of the order. As the notice of appeal was timely, we will treat the motion as a motion for rule on clerk to lodge the record. See Muhammed v. State, 330 Ark. 759, 957 S.W.2d 692 (1997) (per curiam). It is the petitioner who is responsible for tendering the record within the time allowed by the prevailing rules of procedure. This court has consistently held that all litigants, including those who proceed pro se, must bear responsibility for conforming to the rules of procedure or demonstrating a good cause for not doing so. Bragg v. State, 297 Ark. 348, 760 S.W.2d 878 (1988) (per curiam); Peterson v. State, 289 Ark. 452, 711 S.W.2d 830 (1986) (per curiam); Walker v. State, 283 Ark. 339, 676 S.W.2d 460 (1984) (per curiam); Thompson v. State, 280 Ark. 163, 655 S.W.2d 424 (1983) (per curiam). The pro se appellant receives no special consideration on appeal. See Gibson v. State, 298 Ark. 43, 764 S.W.2d 617 (1989). Petitioner here attributes the late tender of the record to his indigency and to the failure of the circuit clerk to "adhere" to Rule 5. The purpose of the rule setting time limitations on lodging a record is to eliminate unnecessary delay in the docketing of appeals. We have made it abundantly clear that we expect compliance with the rule so that appeals will proceed as expeditiously as possible. Jacobs v. State, 321 Ark. 561, 906 S.W.2d 670 (1995) (per curiam), citing Alexander v. Beaumont, 275 Ark. 357, 629 S.W.2d 300 (1982) (per curiam). It was not the responsibility of the circuit clerk or anyone other than petitioner to perfect the appeal. See Sullivan v. State, 301 Ark. 352, 784 S.W.2d 155 (1990) (per curiam); Bragg, supra. Petitioner failed to do so, and has failed to state a good cause for not tendering the record in a timely manner. Motion for belated appeal treated as motion for rule on clerk and denied. 1 Petitioner also pleaded guilty to arson and first-degree battery in the same proceeding in two other cases.