Gregory J. Martin v. State of Arkansas

2020 Ark. 2

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: January 9, 2020
• Status: Published

Opinion

Digitally signed by Susan Williams Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of Cite as 2020 Ark. 2 this document Date: SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS 2023.07.14 No. CR-19-732 14:36:22 -05'00'

GREGORY J. MARTIN Opinion Delivered January 9, 2020 PETITIONER

V. PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL [MILLER COUNTY STATE OF ARKANSAS CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 46CR-17- RESPONDENT 440]

RESPONSE ORDERED.

COURTNEY RAE HUDSON, Associate Justice

Petitioner Gregory J. Martin was convicted of aggravated robbery for which he was

sentenced to 156 months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. On

September 19, 2019, a partial record was tendered to this court, and on the same date,

Martin filed the motion for belated appeal that is now before this court requesting leave to

proceed with a belated appeal of his conviction. Martin’s motion for belated appeal was

filed within the eighteen-month time limitation to file the motion. See Ark. R. App. P.–

Crim. 2 (2019).

In his motion, Martin alleges that after he was tried and found guilty by a jury, he

informed his retained trial counsel, Jasmine Crockett, of his desire to appeal, but she did

not file a notice of appeal and “has[] n[o]t responded to the many attempts to contact her

to fix the situation.” Martin attached an affidavit to his belated-appeal motion asserting that

he had expected and wished his counsel to file a notice of appeal; however, Martin fails to

reveal in his affidavit if the alleged request for an appeal was made within the requisite time frame for filing a notice of appeal. See Cribbs v. State, 2019 Ark. 158 (A defendant waives

his right to appeal by his failure to inform counsel of his or her desire to appeal within the

thirty-day period allowed for filing a notice of appeal.). Martin subsequently filed a pro se

notice of appeal on June 25, 2019. However, he was not able to perfect an appeal because

the notice was not timely filed.

When a pro se motion for belated appeal is filed in which the petitioner contends

that he made a request to appeal and the record does not contain an order relieving trial

counsel, it is the practice of this court to request an affidavit from the trial attorney in

response to the allegations in the motion. Id. The trial record indicates that counsel filed a

motion to withdraw as counsel and appointment of new counsel on June 22, 2018.

However, there is no evidence that an order was entered relieving trial counsel from

representing Martin.1

Crockett was served with the pro se motion for belated appeal by certified mail and

has not responded. In order to determine whether counsel was relieved or whether she was

advised by Martin of his desire to appeal and whether that request was timely made, a

response is required. We order that trial counsel respond to the motion for belated appeal

within ten days of this order.

1 An order granting Martin’s motion for indigency for purposes of appeal was filed on June 22, 2018, the day after Martin appeared before the trial court for sentencing on June 21. 2