Upshaw v. State

2014 Ark. 166

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: April 10, 2014
• Docket: CR-14-205
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2014 Ark. 166

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-14-205

Opinion Delivered April 10, 2014 CLIFFORD UPSHAW, JR. PETITIONER PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL OF ORDER [CRAIGHEAD V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT, NO. 16CR-10- STATE OF ARKANSAS 1176] RESPONDENT MOTION TREATED AS MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK AND DENIED.

PER CURIAM

On July 29, 2013, an order was entered in the Craighead County Circuit Court, Western

District, denying a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of

Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2013) filed by petitioner Clifford Upshaw, Jr. Petitioner timely filed

a notice of appeal from the order on August 13, 2013, but he did not tender the record to this

court as required by Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 4(b) (2013), which provides

that a record must be tendered within ninety days of the date of the notice of appeal. The record

was tendered 163 days after the notice of appeal was filed.

On March 5, 2014, petitioner filed the instant motion seeking to lodge the record

belatedly and proceed with the appeal. As the notice of appeal was timely with respect to the

order, the motion is properly treated as a motion for rule on clerk to perfect the appeal, pursuant

to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 2-2(b) (2013) rather than as a motion for belated appeal.

Wilmoth v. State, 2010 Ark. 315 (per curiam); see also Standridge v. State, 2013 Ark. 134 (per curiam).

As grounds for the motion, petitioner contends that it was the circuit clerk’s responsibility to Cite as 2014 Ark. 166

tender the record by the due-date.

Petitioner has not stated good cause for his failure to perfect the appeal. This court has

consistently held that it is not the responsibility of the circuit clerk, circuit court, or anyone other

than the appellant to perfect an appeal. Sillivan v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 88 (per curiam); Meadows v.

State, 2012 Ark. 374 (per curiam); Perry v. State, 2010 Ark. 84 (per curiam); Branning v. State, 363

Ark. 369, 214 S.W.3d 237 (2005) (per curiam). All litigants, including those who proceed pro

se, must bear responsibility for conforming to the rules of procedure or demonstrate a good

cause for not doing so. Davis v. State, 2012 Ark. 340 (per curiam); Walker v. State, 283 Ark. 339,

676 S.W.2d 460 (1984) (per curiam). We have made it abundantly clear that we expect

compliance with the rules of this court so that appeals will proceed as expeditiously as possible.

Sillivan, 2014 Ark. 88; Smith v. State, 2011 Ark. 367 (per curiam). Petitioner’s claim that it was

entirely the clerk’s responsibility to perfect the appeal is not well founded.

Motion treated as motion for rule on clerk and denied.

Clifford Upshaw, Jr., pro se petitioner.

No response.