Title: Elliott Finch v. State of Arkansas
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: CR07-263
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: October 4, 2007

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 07-263 ELLIOTT FINCH Petitioner v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent Opinion Delivered October 4, 2007 PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, EASTERN DISTRICT, CR 2005-513, HON. PAM HONEYCUTT, JUDGE] MOTION DENIED. PER CURIAM On May 18, 2006, petitioner Elliot Finch was found guilty by a jury of theft of property, aggravated assault on a family or household member, first-degree terroristic threatening, second- degree domestic battering, and two counts of kidnapping. An aggregate sentence of 180 months’ imprisonment was imposed. Petitioner was represented at trial by his retained attorney, W. Ray Nickle. No appeal was taken from the judgment of conviction, which was entered on May 19, 2006, and petitioner filed in this court a pro se motion to proceed with a belated appeal pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 2(e), which permits a belated appeal in a criminal case in some instances. Petitioner contended that he asked Mr. Nickle to file an appeal from the judgment after he was sentenced. In an affidavit submitted in response to the motion, Mr. Nickle disputed the claim, averring that he discussed whether to appeal with petitioner and his family and the decision was reached that an appeal would not be pursued. The question of whether petitioner timely communicated a desire to appeal to counsel was -2- the crux of the matter as we have held that a defendant may waive his right to appeal by his failure to inform counsel of his desire to appeal within the thirty-day period allowed for filing a notice of appeal under Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 2(a)(4). Sanders v. State, 330 Ark. 851, 956 S.W.2d 868 (1997) (per curiam); Jones v. State, 294 Ark. 659, 748 S.W.2d 117 (1988) (per curiam). As petitioner’s and counsel’s accounts of whether counsel was asked to appeal were in direct conflict and required findings of fact, we remanded the matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on whether counsel was informed by petitioner within the time period allowed for filing a notice of appeal that he desired to appeal. Finch v. State, CR 07-263 (Ark. May 3, 2007) (per curiam). The findings and the transcript of the evidentiary hearing are now before us. The court took testimony at the hearing from petitioner, petitioner’s stepfather, and Mr. Nickle. After hearing the testimony, the court concluded that Mr. Nickle’s testimony that he was not asked to appeal from the judgment was more credible than the testimony of petitioner and his stepfather. As the merit of the motion for belated appeal rests entirely on the credibility of the witnesses, and this court recognizes that it is the lower court's task to assess the credibility of witnesses and resolve any conflicts of fact, we accept the trial court's findings. See Frazier v. State, 339 Ark. 173, 3 S.W.3d 334 (1999) (per curiam ) (citing Allen v. State, 277 Ark. 380, 641 S.W.2d 710 (1982) (per curiam)). The motion for belated appeal is denied. Motion denied.