Title: Joe D. Thompson v. State of Arkansas

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION PER CURIAM September 26, 2002 JOE D. THOMPSON Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent CR 02-555 PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL OF ORDER [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, FIFTH DIVISION, CR 2000-1072, HON. WILLARD PROCTOR, JR., JUDGE] MOTION TREATED AS MOTION FOR RULE ON THE CLERK AND DENIED Joe D. Thompson pled guilty in Pulaski County Circuit Court to rape, residential burglary, and second-degree battery. He was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment. Thompson then filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, which the circuit court denied. Thompson filed a timely notice of appeal, but failed to lodge the record on appeal with the clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Court within ninety days of the notice of appeal. Ark. R. App. P. -- Civ. 5(a); Ark. R. App. P. -- Crim. 4. Thompson now seeks to proceed with a belated appeal of the denial of his petition. As the notice of appeal was timely filed, we treat the motion as a motion for rule on the clerk to lodge the appeal rather than a motion for belated appeal. Stevens v. State, 344 Ark. 168, 39 S.W.3d 758 (2001). A petitioner has the right to appeal a ruling on a petition for postconviction relief. Scott v. State, 281 Ark. 436, 664 S.W.2d 475 (1984). With that right, however, goes the responsibility to abide by the rules of procedure. If a petitioner fails to follow procedural rules, the burden is on thepetitioner to make a showing of good cause for the failure to comply with proper procedure. See Garner v. State, 293 Ark. 309, 737 S.W.2d 637 (1987). The fact that a petitioner is proceeding pro se in itself does not constitute good cause for the failure to conform to the prevailing rules of procedure. See Sullivan v. State, 301 Ark. 352, 784 S.W.2d 155 (1990). This court has specifically held that it is not the responsibility of the circuit clerk or anyone other than the appellant to perfect an appeal. See Sullivan v. State, supra. Thompson offers no explanation as to why he failed to tender the record in a timely manner. Instead he addresses the merits of his Rule 37 petition. As Thompson did not pursue the course available to him to perfect the appeal and has not established that there was good cause for failure to do so, the motion to proceed with the appeal is denied. Motion denied.