Stevenson v. State, CR 08-1388.
| Decision Date | 19 December 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. CR 08-1388.,CR 08-1388. |
| Citation | 375 Ark. 318,290 S.W.3d 5 |
| Parties | Jonathan Lapresse STEVENSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Teresa Bloodman, Little Rock, AR, for appellant.
No response.
MOTION FOR RULE ON THE CLERK
Attorney Teresa Bloodman filed a motion for rule on clerk, and amended motion for rule on clerk, on behalf of her client Jonathon Laprese Stevenson seeking an order of this court that the clerk lodge and docket the appeal in this case. The clerk refused to docket the appeal based on an untimely notice of appeal. We treat this as a motion for belated appeal and grant the motion.
Stevenson's judgment and commitment order was filed on December 13, 2007. Stevenson filed a motion for new trial on January 7, 2008, an amended motion for new trial on January 14, 2008, and a second amended motion for new trial on May 14, 2008. His initial motion filed January 7, 2008, and the amended motion filed January 14, 2008, were timely under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.3(b) as posttrial motions filed within thirty days after the date of entry of judgment. The second amended motion for new trial was not timely as it was not filed within thirty days after the date of entry of judgment.
Under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 33.3(c), a posttrial motion is deemed denied thirty days after the motion is filed if the circuit court neither grants nor denies the motion. Because it was untimely, the second amended motion for new trial did not extend the thirty days of Rule 33.3(c) after which the motion for new trial was deemed denied. The January 14, 2008 amended motion, as the last timely motion, was deemed denied on February 13, 2008. Pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure-Criminal 2(a)(3), Stevenson had thirty days from the February 13, 2008 date on which his amended motion for new trial was deemed denied within which to file his notice of appeal. No notice of appeal was ever filed on the judgment and commitment order.
On November 12, 2008, an Amended Judgment and Commitment Order was entered and Stevenson filed a notice of appeal from that amended judgment on November 18, 2008. Assuming there was a motion to amend the judgment, it would have been a posttrial motion for relief, and if by filing it Stevenson wished to extend the time within which to file his notice of appeal, it had to be filed within thirty days of entry of the judgment and commitment order. See Hadley v. State, 321 Ark. 499, 902 S.W.2d 231 (1995). Nothing in the record reflects that a motion to amend the judgment was filed or that it was timely filed. It is the appellant's duty to bring before this court a record sufficient to decide the issue presented. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 343 Ark....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fincham v. State
...appellant's duty to present to this court a record sufficient to show that the circuit judge erred below. See, e.g., Stevenson v. State, 375 Ark. 318, 290 S.W.3d 5 (2008). To preserve an objection to the circuit court's failure to give an instruction, the appellant must make a proffer of th......
-
Robertson v. State
...appellant's duty to present to this court a record sufficient to show that the circuit judge erred below. See, e.g., Stevenson v. State, 375 Ark. 318, 290 S.W.3d 5 (2008). To preserve an objection to an instruction for appeal, the appellant must make a proffer of the proposed instruction to......
-
Bloodman v. State
...as a motion for belated appeal and granted based on Bloodman's failure to timely file a notice of appeal. Stevenson v. State, 375 Ark. 318, 290 S.W.3d 5 (2008) (per curiam). In that per curiam, this court observed that an amended judgment and commitment order was entered on November 12, 200......
-
Stevenson v. State, CA CR08-1388 (Ark. App. 9/9/2009)
...Stevenson eventually filed a notice of appeal, and the supreme court agreed to allow him a belated appeal. See Stevenson v. State, 375 Ark. 318, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2008). First, Stevenson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the rape conviction. When considering a challenge to......