Title: Percy Henderson v. Gaylon Lay

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. 05-247 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION PERCY HENDERSON Petitioner v. GAYLON LAY Respondent Opinion Delivered June 2, 2005 PRO SE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BELATED APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY, LCIV-2004-61-1, HON. BERLIN C. JONES, JUDGE] MOTION DENIED PER CURIAM Percy Henderson, who is in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Correction, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court of the county in which he is incarcerated. The petition was denied on October 13, 2004. Henderson filed a notice of appeal on December 13, 2004, which was not within the thirty-day period allowed for filing a notice of appeal under Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 4 (a). When the record was tendered to this court, our clerk correctly declined to lodge it because the notice of appeal was untimely. Now before us is petitioner's motion for belated appeal. 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). Petitioner states that he placed the documents in the mail on November 2, 2004, and asserts that they should have been filed prior to the November 12, 2004, deadline for timely filing. The motion is denied. We have declined to adopt the prison mail-box rule that is accepted in some courts, and 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 tendered on the date it is received and file marked by the clerk, not on the date it may have been placed in the mail. Petitioner is solely responsible for depositing his brief with the clerk. Petitioner has established no good cause for his failure to comply with proper procedure. Motion denied.