Title: Walter Mackintrush v. State of Arkansas
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: CR00-514
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: November 29, 2001

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION PER CURIAM NOVEMBER 29, 2001 WALTER MACKINTRUSH Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent CR 00-514 PRO SE MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CR 94-3632, HON. JOHN LANGSTON, JUDGE] MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK TREATED AS MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL AND DENIED Walter Mackintrush was found guilty by a jury of murder in the second degree and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Mackintrush v. State, 60 Ark. App. 42, 959 S.W.2d 404 (1997). Mackintrush filed a petition for review in this court, and we affirmed. Mackintrush v. State, 334 Ark. 930, 978 S.W.2d 293 (1998). Mackintrush subsequently filed in the trial court a timely petition pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37 seeking to vacate the judgment. The petition was denied, and this court affirmed the order. Mackintrush v. State (Ark. October 4, 2001.) The appellant's petition for rehearing was denied. Mackintrush v. State (Ark. November 8, 2001). Now before us is a motion for rule on clerk filed by Mr. Mackintrush with respect to an order that denied his motion filed in the trial court requesting a copy of the transcript of his trial at public expense. Petitioner Mackintrush failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the order, and now asks to lodge the record belatedly and proceed with an appeal of the order. As thenotice of appeal was not timely filed, we will treat the motion for rule on clerk as a motion for belated appeal pursuant to Rule 2(e) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure--Criminal, which permits a belated appeal of a postconviction order in some instances even though the petitioner failed to file a timely notice of appeal. 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 limits set by the rules of procedure. If a petitioner fails to file a timely notice of appeal or 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). 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. Petitioner contends that he mailed the notice of appeal to the circuit clerk within the thirty-day period to file it, but it was not filed by the clerk. Petitioner asks this court to consider that the notice was mailed during a holiday season and was likely delayed by the fact that county offices are closed on major holidays. This court has specifically held that the litigant who claims to have mailed an item has theburden 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 is not clear here whether the petitioner is placing the fault for the late filing of the notice of appeal on the post office or the circuit clerk or both, but the fact remains that there is nothing in the record or the motion to show that petitioner was truly unable to comply with procedural rules through no fault of his own. It must be assumed that if the petitioner had mailed the notice to the clerk on time, it would have been delivered. Leavy v. Norris v. State, 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 for belated appeal is denied. Motion for rule on clerk treated as motion for belated appeal and denied.