Title: Timothy Deshun Bohanan v. State of Arkansas

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION PER CURIAM MARCH 14, 2002 TIMOTHY DESHUN BOHANAN Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent CR 02-43 PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL OF ORDER AND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CR 99-4733, HON. JOHN PLEGGE, J.] MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL DENIED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL MOOT Timothy Deshun Bohanan was found guilty of aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and theft of property and sentenced to an aggregate term of 480 months' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Bohanan v. State, CACR 00-804 (April 25, 2001). Bohanan subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37 in the trial court that was denied on July 25, 2001. Bohanan did not file a notice of appeal from the order until September 12, 2001, which was not within the thirty-day period allowed for filing a notice of appeal under Rule 2(a)(4) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure-Criminal. When the record was tendered here, our clerk correctly declined to lodge it because of the late notice of appeal. Now before us is petitioner's motion for belated appeal. Petitioner has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Petitioner contends that he should be permitted to proceed with a belated appeal because the late filing of the notice of appeal was the fault of the circuit clerk. He states that he mailed the notice of appeal to the circuit clerk on August 23, 2001, one day before it was due to be filed, but the clerk failed to perfect the appeal. Petitioner offers no proof of having mailed the notice of appeal on August 23, 2001, and we take judicial notice that on August 30, 2001, petitioner tendered a notice of appeal to this court with a letter asking that it be filed here. 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 goes the responsibility to file a timely notice of appeal within thirty days of the date the order was entered in accordance with Rule 2(a)(4). 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). 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); Thompson v. State, 280 Ark. 163, 655 S.W.2d 424 (1983); see also 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; Bragg v. State, 297 Ark. 348, 760 S.W.2d 878 (1988). We have further held that the litigant who claims to have mailed an item has the burden of proving that he mailed it and that it reached the circuit clerk by the date it was due to be filed. See Leavy v. Norris, 324 Ark. 346, 920 S.W.2d 842 (1996). The bare allegation that a notice of appeal was mailed is not in itself good cause to grant a belated appeal. Skaggs v. State, 287 Ark. 259, 697 S.W.2d 913 (1985). As we said in Skaggs, If it [the allegation that a notice was mailed] were [sufficient], there would be no point in setting up rules of procedure since the procedural requirements could be circumvented by a simple claim that the petitioner's failure to comply with the rules was caused by the post office. It must be assumed that if the petitioner had mailed the notice to the clerk on time, it would have been delivered and filed. Leavy, supra. As petitioner has not established that the clerk received the notice within thirty days of the order appealed from but did not file it and has stated no good cause for his failure to file a timely notice of appeal, the motion to proceed with a belated appeal is denied. The motion for appointment of counsel is moot. Motion for belated appeal denied; motion for appointment of counsel moot.