Title: Danny Ray Woods v. State of Arkansas
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: CR02-861
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: November 7, 2002

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION PER CURIAM November 7, 2002 DANNY RAY WOODS Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent CR 02-861 PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL OF ORDER [CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, NO. CR 98-856-2-3, HON. FRED DAVIS, JUDGE] MOTION TREATED AS MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK AND DENIED Danny Ray Woods was found guilty of rape, aggravated robbery, and residential burglary. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment for the rape, forty years' imprisonment for the aggravated robbery, and thirty years' imprisonment for the residential burglary. We affirmed. Woods v. State, 342 Ark. 89, 27 S.W.3d 367 (2000). Woods subsequently filed in the trial court a timely pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37. The petition was denied, and Woods filed a timely notice of appeal but did not tender the record to this court within ninety days of the date of the notice of appeal as required by Ark. R. App. P.-Civil 5(a).1 Now before us is Woods'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. As grounds for the request to lodge the record belatedly, petitioner Woods contends that he attempted to file a timely motion to extend the time to lodge the record but was prevented from doing so by the circuit clerk who twice returned the motion to him for clerical reasons, i.e. the tendered motion was not the original and the motion and copies did not bear his original signature. He states that when his brother presented the same motion for him to the clerk, it was accepted and filed, but by that time it was not timely. In essence, he places the failure to perfect the appeal on the circuit clerk. 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 file a timely notice of appeal and tender the record here within the time limit set by the rules of procedure. If a petitioner fails to perfect the appeal, 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). 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, circuit court, or anyone other than the appellant to perfect an appeal. See Sullivan v. State, supra; Bragg v. State, supra. It was thus the petitioner's burden to tender the record here within the time allowed by Rule 5(a). In the event petitioner could not tender the full record, his course was to lodge a partial record here within within ninety days of the date of the notice of appeal as required by Rule 5(a) with a petition for writ of certiorari to complete the record. Petitioner failed to perfect the appeal and has not established that there was good cause for his failure to do so. Accordingly, the motion to proceed with the appeal is denied. Motion treated as motion for rule on clerk and denied. 1 The record was tendered here 156 days after the notice of appeal was filed.