Title: Freddie Ray Walker v. State of Arkansas
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: CR05-929
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: December 1, 2005

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 05-929 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION FREDDIE RAY WALKER Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent Opinion Delivered January 19, 2006 PRO SE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS FOR BELATED APPEAL AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR 2001-3751, HON. TIMOTHY FOX, JUDGE] MOTION DENIED PER CURIAM A jury convicted Freddie Ray Walker of robbery and misdemeanor theft of property. An aggregate sentence of forty years' imprisonment as a habitual offender was imposed. The court of appeals affirmed. Walker v. State, CACR 02-1200 (Ark. App. April 30, 2003). Walker 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 March 3, 2004. Petitioner Walker sought leave to file a belated appeal in this court from the order denying postconviction relief and moved for appointment of counsel. We denied the motion for belated appeal and held the motion for appointment moot. Walker v. State, CR 05-929 (Ark. December 1, 2005) (per curiam). Now before us is petitioner's pro se motion seeking reconsideration of that decision. In initially denying petitioner's motion for belated appeal, we found that petitioner failed to show good cause for the delay in seeking a belated appeal. In the motion for reconsideration, petitioner claims that he had inadequate access to a law library, lack of knowledge to handle the appeal and lack of legal representation. None of these arguments rises to the level of good cause. As with all matters before this court, the burden lies with 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 petitioner is proceeding pro se or is incarcerated 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) (per curiam); 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). Therefore, lack of personal knowledge, lack of legal representation and lack of access to a law library do not constitute good cause for granting the motion for belated appeal. Motion for reconsideration denied.