Title: Richard Alan Davis v. State of Arkansas
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 07-794
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: December 6, 2007

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. 07-794 RICHARD ALAN DAVIS Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee Opinion Delivered February 14, 2008 PRO SE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL OF APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF LEE COUNTY, CV 2007-41, HON. HARVEY L. YATES, JUDGE] MOTION DENIED. PER CURIAM Appellant Richard Alan Davis filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Lee County Circuit Court. The circuit court denied the petition and appellant lodged an appeal of the order in this court. The State filed a motion to dismiss and we granted the motion on the basis that appellant did not timely file in this court a compliant brief and had not sought to file a belated brief. Davis v. State, 07­ 794 (Ark. Dec. 6, 2007) (per curiam). Appellant now brings this motion seeking reconsideration of our decision to dismiss the appeal. Appellant argues in his motion that the due date for his brief should have been extended by three days from the date provided in the letter sent to him from one of our staff attorneys. He bases his argument upon the language in Ark. R. Civ. P. 6(d). However, Rule 6 is not applicable in circumstances where an appellant pursues postconviction relief in this court. This court hasrecognizedthat postconvictionreliefproceedings are civilinnature and applied the Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil when necessary. Sanders v. State, 352 Ark. 16, 98 S.W.3d ­2­ 35 (2003). However, we have never applied the Rules of Civil Procedure to postconviction relief proceedings. Id. Nor will we apply those rules to a postconviction habeas proceeding. See Baker v. Norris, 359 Ark. 405, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2007). In this case, our staff correctly set the applicable deadline under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4­7(c)(4). Appellant was not entitled to an extension under Rule 6. Motion denied.