Summary
The Arkansas Supreme Court denied Carl Davis, Jr.’s pro se motion for permission to pursue a belated appeal or proceed by rule on clerk. The court held that Davis’s notice of appeal from the denial of his declaratory-judgment and mandamus petition was untimely and that his failure to seek an available extension of time did not constitute good cause. The court emphasized that pro se litigants are held to the same procedural requirements as attorneys.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Davis was entitled to proceed with an appeal despite filing his notice of appeal outside the thirty-day period required by Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Civil 4(a).
- Whether Davis's alleged lack of prompt notice of the circuit court's order constituted good cause for a belated appeal.
- Whether the proceeding's treatment as an application for postconviction relief required the circuit court to provide the notice mandated by Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.3(d).
Holdings
- Because Davis filed his notice of appeal late, his request for rule on clerk was properly treated as a motion for belated appeal.
- Davis failed to establish good cause for his failure to timely file the notice of appeal because delayed notice, under the circumstances presented, did not excuse his failure to exercise reasonable diligence or seek an extension within the time allowed by Rule 4(b)(3).
- Although the court treats declaratory-judgment proceedings seeking relief from conditions of incarceration as applications for postconviction relief in appropriate circumstances, Davis's proceeding was not subject to the mandatory notice requirement of Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.3(d) because it was not a Rule 37.1 petition.
Key quotations
“Under Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 2(e), this court may act upon and decide a case in which the notice of appeal was not filed in the time prescribed when a good reason for the omission is shown.” (2016 Ark. 47, at 2)
“Under circumstances such as those in the instant proceedings, that is, where there was no absolute duty imposed on a judge or a clerk to notify the petitioner that a petition for postconviction relief had been denied, a failure to provide timely notice of the denial does not in itself constitute good cause for the failure to file a timely notice of appeal.” (2016 Ark. 47, at 3)
“The duty to conform to procedural rules applies even when the petitioner proceeds pro se, as all litigants must bear the responsibility for conforming to the rules of procedure or demonstrating good cause for not doing so.” (2016 Ark. 47, at 4)
Factual background
Davis challenged the calculation of his parole-eligibility date through a petition for declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus. The circuit court denied the petition on April 17, 2015. Davis asserted that he did not receive the order until September 2, 2015, but he filed his notice of appeal on September 13, 2015, 149 days after entry of the order, and did not seek an extension within the period allowed by Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Civil 4(b)(3).
Procedural history
Davis filed a petition for declaratory judgment and writ of mandamus concerning the calculation of his parole-eligibility date. The Lincoln County Circuit Court denied the petition on April 17, 2015. Davis filed a notice of appeal on September 13, 2015, and the Arkansas Supreme Court clerk declined to lodge the record because the notice was untimely. The Supreme Court denied Davis's motion for rule on clerk or belated appeal.