Title: Charles Higgins v. State of Arkansas
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: CR06-1323
State: Arkansas
Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court
Date: March 8, 2007

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. CR 06-1323 CHARLES HIGGINS Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee Opinion Delivered September 27, 2007 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR 2004-2753, HON. JOHN W. LANGSTON, JUDGE AFFIRMED. PER CURIAM A jury found appellant Charles Higgins guilty of aggravated robbery and theft of property and sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction and a fine of $250. Appellant appealed the judgment and the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Higgins v. State, 94 Ark. App. 328, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2006). Appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, which was denied as untimely in an order entered July 25, 2006. The order indicated that the petition was filed on June 21, 2006, sixty-two days after the mandate issued. Under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c), a petition for postconviction relief sought under Rule 37.1 must be filed, if an appeal was taken of the judgment of conviction, within sixty days after the mandate is issued. Appellant next filed, through counsel, a motion for reconsideration that alleged the petition was in fact timely, and that the file mark on the petition was incorrect. The motion was denied by order entered August 7, 2006. Appellant filed a notice of appeal referencing both the July 25, 2006, -2- order on the petition and the August 7, 2006, order denying the motion for reconsideration. We earlier denied the State’s motion to dismiss, holding that we would permit the issues to be briefed before a final ruling. Higgins v. State, 369 Ark. 206, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2007) (per curiam). The parties have now filed their briefs and the matter is before us. As we noted in our opinion on the State’s motion, appellant sought review of both orders. However, the record reveals that appellant failed to timely file a notice of appeal as to the July 25, 2006, order, and we are therefore limited in our review to the issue of whether the order denying the motion for reconsideration should be affirmed. Appellant filed his only notice of appeal on August 25, 2006, thirty-one days after the first order was entered. Under Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 4 (a), the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of that date. Appellant’s motion for reconsideration asserted that, despite the June 21, 2006, file mark on appellant’s petition, it had been timely filed, and requested the trial court to reconsider its finding that the petition was not timely. The motion asserted that the actual filing date was Friday, June 16, 2006, and that the petition had been delivered to the clerk’s office for filing on that date. The mandate issued on April 20, 2006, and the petition was required to be filed by Monday, June 19, 2006, in order to comply with Rule 37.2(c). Appellant attached to the motion an affidavit of an employee of the Pulaski County Circuit Clerk’s Office verifying that an envelope had been received from appellant on that date. The trial court declined to consider the motion, citing Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(d) and indicating that it could not revisit an issue on which it had provided a ruling. Rule 37.2(d) provides any decision in a proceeding under the rule is final when the judgment is rendered and the court may not consider a petition for rehearing. This court has held that a petitioner may request the trial court to -3- modify its order to consider an omitted issue on which the court did not provide a ruling, but reaffirmed that the trial court could not reverse a decision on an issue that it had already considered and ruled upon. Matthews v. State, 333 Ark. 701, 975 S.W.2d 836 (1998) (per curiam). Here, the trial court did specifically consider the question of when the petition was filed and had previously made a decision. Appellant cites Smith v. State, 362 Ark. 173, 207 S.W.3d 555 (2005) (per curiam), in support of his argument that we should reverse because, as he alleges, the clerk failed to mark the petition on the date it was received. Appellant further contends that the date he alleges the petition was received should also be the date it was actually filed, rather than the date marked, and such governmental interference with appellant’s petition should not be permitted to bar consideration of it. In Smith, we remanded to settle the record in order for the trial court to consider evidence as to when the petition was filed, where the appellant in that case asserted his attorney had faxed the petition to the clerk and called to confirm its receipt. In Smith, however, we remanded to determine whether this court had jurisdiction to consider the appeal of the order dismissing the petition. Appellant here does not address whether the trial court could entertain his motion in light of the restriction on rehearing in Rule 37.2(d), and presents no argument as to a basis under which the trial court may have considered the motion and appellant’s allegations concerning the filing date. This court does not research or develop arguments for appellants. Hester v. State, 362 Ark. 373, 208 S.W.3d 747 (2005). Because appellant failed to timely file notice of appeal as to the order dismissing the petition, we cannot address the ruling by the trial court in its order dismissing the petition, and we therefore cannot remand for further evidentiary findings to settle the record under Smith. The trial court -4- correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to consider appellant’s motion, and we therefore affirm the order denying that motion. Affirmed.