Title: Ricky L. Scott v. State of Arkansas

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 06-10 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION RICKY L. SCOTT Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent Opinion Delivered January 26, 2006 PRO SE MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK TO LODGE RECORD [CIRCUIT COURT OF CROSS COUNTY, CR 96-61; HON. L.T. SIMES, JUDGE] MOTION DENIED PER CURIAM A jury found Ricky L. Scott guilty of murder in the first degree and he received a sentence of life imprisonment. We affirmed. Scott v. State, 337 Ark. 320, 989 S.W.2d 891 (1999). Scott subsequently filed a timely petition in the trial court for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court denied the petition on April 20, 2001, and Scott appealed to this court. We remanded the case back to the trial court so that the trial court could enter specific written findings pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.3. Scott v. State, 351 Ark. 619, 96 S.W.3d 732 (2003). The trial court entered a second order denying Rule 37.1 relief on April 2, 2003. Scott lodged an appeal from that order in this court. We affirmed. Scott v. State, 355 Ark. 485, 139 S.W.3d 511 (2003).1 Subsequent to the remand of the postconviction matter to this court, Scott filed a motion on May 8, 2003, in the trial court to modify the second order denying his petition for Rule 37.1 relief. The trial court denied the motion to modify the second Rule 37.1 order on December 17, 2004, and Scott lodged an appeal from that order in this court.2 We held that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to modify its order after the remand had been returned to this court and dismissed the appeal. Scott v. State, CR 05-350 (Ark. May 19, 2005) (per curiam). Scott filed a petition for writ of certiorari or prohibition seeking this court to overturn the trial court's March 22, 2005, order relieving the public defender as counsel for Scott in matters pending before the trial court. We denied the petition without prejudice. Scott v. State, CR 05-477 (Ark. May 19, 2005) (per curiam). Scott filed a series of pleadings in the court below which the trial court denied in an order entered on July 29, 2005.3 Scott also filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court seeking an order directing the trial court to rule on Scott's motion for return of seized property filed December1, 2000, and the petition to set aside and vacate the judgment originally filed on October 7, 2004. We found Scott's petition for writ of mandamus to be moot as a result of the trial court's July 29, 2005, order. Scott v. State, CR 05-116 (Ark. September 29, 2005) (per curiam). In the same decision, we denied Scott's motion for appointment of counsel on the petition for writ of mandamus before this court. Now before us is petitioner Scott's motion for rule on clerk under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 2-2(b). From the trial court's July 29, 2005, order denying numerous motions, petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal on August 19, 2005. However, he did not tender the record on appeal to this court until November 29, 2005, more than 90 days after filing his notice of appeal. As petitioner did not perfect the appeal, he now seeks leave to lodge the record belatedly and proceed with an appeal of the order. In his motion for rule on clerk, petitioner admits fault for tendering the record late. He attributes the late tender to his miscalculation of the date the record was due to be filed and being unaware that the record had been prepared. He also admits fault for failing to file a motion for extension of time to lodge the record. A petitioner has the right to appeal a ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. See Scott v. State, 281 Ark. 436, 664 S.W.2d 475 (1984) (per curiam). With that right, however, goes the responsibility to file a timely notice of appeal and tender the record with this court within the time limits set by the rules of procedure. If a petitioner fails to tender the record in a timely fashion, the burden is on the petitioner 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) (per curiam). 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. Walker v. State, 283 Ark. 339, 676 S.W.2d 460 (1984) (percuriam); Thompson v. State, 280 Ark. 163, 655 S.W.2d 424 (1983) (per curiam); see also Sullivan v. State, 301 Ark. 352, 784 S.W.2d 155 (1990) (per curiam). In support of his motion, petitioner cites several cases wherein an attorney for a criminal defendant failed to timely perfect an appeal. In those instances, upon the attorney's admitting fault, this court granted a motion for rule on the clerk. Petitioner argues the same reasoning should be applied to the instant motion. Indeed, in this very case, we previously granted a motion for rule on the clerk to allow petitioner's then-attorney to belatedly lodge the record on appeal on another matter. Scott v. State, CR 01-1052 (Ark. February 21, 2002) (per curiam) and Scott v. State, CR 01-1052 (Ark. April 18, 2002) (per curiam). However, petitioner fails to distinguish the present case from the prior situation. We recognize that good cause exists when an attorney for a criminal defendant error commits the error. See, e.g., Hill v. State, __ Ark. __, __ S.W.3d __ (September 29, 2005) (per curiam), citing In Re Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam). In contrast, when proceeding pro se, this court has specifically held that it is not the responsibility of the circuit clerk, circuit court, or anyone other than the petitioner to perfect an appeal. See Sullivan v. State, supra. Here, the petitioner states only that he accepts fault for miscalculating the due date for tendering the record and for being unaware the record had been completed. These contentions do not constitute good cause for petitioner's failure to perfect the appeal. Accordingly, the motion to lodge the record and proceed with the appeal is denied. Motion denied. 1 Both Scott's attorney and Scott, acting pro se, filed a petition for rehearing, denied by per curiam order on January 22, 2004. 2 Scott filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court seeking an order directing the trial court to rule on Scott's May 8, 2003, motion to modify the second order denying postconviction relief. We held the petition for writ of mandamus to be moot. Scott v. State, CR 04-1322 (Ark. January 6, 2005) (per curiam). 3 The trial court denied the following pleadings: 1) a petition for writ of mandamus filed on July 8, 2005, related to a petition to vacate and set aside the 1998 judgment finding him guilty of murder in the first degree pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001 which Scott initially filed on October 7, 2004, and related to a motion for return of seized property filed on December 1, 2000, and a motion for production of "documents and things, etc." filed on March 23, 2005; 2) the amended petition, the second amended petition, the third amended petition and the fourth amended petition to vacate and set aside the judgment filed respectively on February 22, 2005, March 4, 2005, March 30, 2005 and April 29, 2005; 3) a motion for "court order" to compel the circuit court clerk to provide copy of the transcript on appeal with this court, filed on February 22, 2005; 4) a motion for appointment of a private attorney filed on February 22, 2005; 5) the motion for production of documents filed on March 23, 2005, which was also subject of the petition for writ of mandamus filed on July 8, 2005; 6) a motion for production of documents filed May 20, 2005; and 7) a motion for appointment of scientific experts filed May 20, 2005.