White v. State
| Decision Date | 08 May 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. CR 08-45.,CR 08-45. |
| Citation | 373 Ark. 415,284 S.W.3d 64 |
| Parties | Anthony D. WHITE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Arkansas, Respondent. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
No response.
A jury found petitioner Anthony D. White guilty of possession of cocaine, simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, and possession of a firearm by a felon and sentenced him to an aggregate term of 1320 months' imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. White v. State, CACR 06-799, 2007 WL 1207364 (Ark.App. Apr. 25, 2007). Petitioner timely filed in the trial court a petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R.Crim. P. 37.1, which was denied by order entered on August 20, 2007.
Following the entry of that order, petitioner filed in the trial court a motion to modify, which requested rehearing of certain issues despite the prohibition in Ark. R.Crim. P. 37.2(d) against consideration of such a request. The trial court denied that motion, and petitioner filed a notice of appeal for the order entered on August 20, 2007. Each of these documents was marked as filed on September 25, 2007.
Petitioner filed in this court a motion for belated appeal, seeking permission to proceed with his appeal. We remanded for the trial court to take evidence to settle the record as to the filing date of the notice of appeal. White v. State, CR 08-45, 2008 WL 538489 (Ark. Feb. 28, 2007) (per curiam). The trial court conducted a hearing, and the record of that hearing, including the trial court's findings, has now been provided on remand.
The trial court was instructed that petitioner, as the party challenging the file mark, carried the burden to show by a preponderance of evidence that the filing date affixed was not correct. See State v. Thurman, 305 Ark. 448-A, 809 S.W.2d 821 (1991) (per curiam). The court conducted the hearing without petitioner, however, relying upon information from a deputy court clerk and the court's own recollection of events. Because that fact was undisputed, the trial court accepted as true petitioner's allegation that the circuit clerk received the notice of appeal of the August 20, 2007, order on September 12, 2007.
The court found that the clerk delayed filing the documents until September 25, 2007, but concluded that there was no clerical error. The court determined that, without some notice from the defendant concerning the urgency of the request, the delay was reasonable because the clerk was following procedure in not filing the documents until there was a ruling on a motion to proceed in forma pauperis included with petitioner's documents. The trial court indicated that none of the documents would be filed if the court's determination on the motion to proceed in forma pauperis was not favorable, noting that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis was approved and an order was entered setting an initial partial filing fee.
Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the referenced orders concerning it are not included in the partial record. We note first that a partial filing fee under Ark.Code Ann. § 16-68-606 (Repl.2005) is not applicable, as Act 340 of 1997 applies only to civil cases. While proceedings on a Rule 37.1 petition may be civil in nature for some purposes, those cases are brought under criminal rules of procedure and are criminal cases for purposes of application of the act. See Sanders v. State, 352 Ark. 16, 98 S.W.3d 35 (2003).
Moreover, a grant of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis would seem inconsistent with approval of a partial filing fee under the act. Under Ark.Code Ann. § 16-68-603 (Repl.2005), an indigent incarcerated person is not prohibited from filing suit and Ark.Code Ann. § 16-68-604 (Repl.2005) permits authorization of a suit without payment of fees and costs where an appropriate affidavit is filed. The court should respond to a motion to proceed in forma pauperis with a determination that the movant is either a pauper or that he is not. In civil proceedings, the court may waive the fees for a movant who is determined to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ark. GAME v. EDDINGS
...492 (1942) (delivery and receipt of record from justice-of-peace court without objection constituted filing); Cf. White v. State, 373 Ark. 415, 284 S.W.3d 64 (2008) (petitioner's notice of appeal timely where circuit clerk erred in failing to file the notice of appeal on the day received). ......
-
White v. State, No. CR 08-45 (Ark. 4/23/2009)
...filed in this court a motion for belated appeal of the order denying postconviction relief that we granted. White v. State, 373 Ark. 415, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2008) (per curiam). The parties have now filed their briefs and the matter is before Appellant raises six points on appeal, as follows: (......
-
Halfacre v. Kelley
...decision by implementing procedures that prevent indigent petitioners from filing timely appeals. See White v. State, 373 Ark. 415, 418, 284 S.W.3d 64, 66 (2008) (per curiam). This is so because to the extent that a right of appeal is granted, equal protection applies and procedures that wo......
-
Stivers v. State, No. CR 08-203 (Ark. 1/22/2009)
...the same day that the court granted the pauper motion, and outside of the ninety-day limitation. Recently, in White v. State, 373 Ark. 415, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2008) (per curiam), we addressed the timely filing of a notice of appeal from the denial of a Rule 37.1 petition. In White, we held tha......