Title: William Lenox a/k/a William Joseph Lenox v. State of Arkansas
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: CR07-64
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: February 8, 2007

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 07-64 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION WILLIAM LENOX A/K/A WILLIAM JOSEPH LENOX Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent Opinion Delivered February 8, 2007 PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, WESTERN DISTRICT, CR 2002-339, HON. CHARLES DAVID BURNETT, JUDGE] MOTION DENIED. PER CURIAM In 2003, William Lenox, who is also known as William Joseph Lenox, was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and kidnapping and sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Lenox v. State, CACR 03-197 (Ark. App. May 19, 2004). Subsequently, petitioner timely filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1. The trial court denied the petition in an order filed September 22, 2005. Before us now is petitioner’s pro se motion for belated appeal pursuant to Ark. R. App. P. – Crim. 2(e) of the denial of petitioner’s Rule 37.1 petition. In the motion, petitioner argues the following basis for allowing a belated appeal: Petitioner believes himself to be entitled to appellate review and a belated appeal through no fault of his own. For the filing of court order on appeal was never lodged. Proceeding was never returned where fore [sic] it must have gotten lost in the mail for the appeal was processed pro se [sic] and inmate assistance. Between Sept. 22 and Oct. 22nd, abstracted issues not addressed. Rule 37 petition and court order in Lenox vs. State, CR-02-339. As with all matters before this court, if a petitioner who is proceeding pro se fails to follow correct procedural requirements, the burden lies with the petitioner to make a showing of good cause -2- 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 a petitioner is proceeding pro se does not in itself 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); see also Sullivan v. State, 301 Ark. 352, 784 S.W.2d 155 (1990) (per curiam). When proceeding pro se, this court has specifically held that it is not the responsibility of the circuit clerk, circuit court, or anyone other than the petitioner to perfect an appeal. Sullivan, supra. Petitioner has stated no good reason for failing to timely file his notice of appeal from the date the trial court’s order denying petitioner’s Rule 37.1 petition. Motion denied.