Cite as 2014 Ark. 426
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-14-700
ANDROUS HALL Opinion Delivered October 9, 2014
PETITIONER
PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED
V. APPEAL
[PHILLIPS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. 54CR-96-271]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
RESPONDENT HONORABLE L.T. SIMES, JUDGE
MOTION TREATED AS MOTION FOR
RULE ON CLERK AND DENIED.
PER CURIAM
In 2013, petitioner Androus Hall filed a pro se motion to dismiss and vacate a sentence
imposed in the Phillips County Circuit Court. On January 30, 2014, the circuit court entered an
order that denied the motion. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on February 25, 2014, and he
tendered a partial record to this court with a motion for belated appeal on August 15, 2014. The
motion is now before us.
Because petitioner’s notice of appeal was timely filed, we treat the motion for belated
appeal as a motion for rule on clerk under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 2-2 (2014). Mitchael
v. State, 2012 Ark. 256 (per curiam). Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 4(b) (2014)
requires that the record must be tendered to this court within ninety days of the date of the
notice of appeal. When a petitioner fails to perfect an appeal in accordance with the prevailing
rules of procedure, the burden is on the petitioner, even if he is proceeding pro se, to establish
good cause for the failure to comply with procedural rules. Martin v. State, 2014 Ark. 187 (per
Cite as 2014 Ark. 426
curiam).
In the motion, petitioner asserts that the record was not timely tendered because the
circuit clerk declined to prepare the record until petitioner’s status as an indigent prisoner was
“certified” by the court. In support of this argument, petitioner points to a motion for extension
of time to file record and a motion to file a partial record that he filed in the circuit court. In the
two motions, petitioner averred that the clerk had notified him that the fee for preparation of
the record could not be waived until an order was entered granting petitioner’s motion to
proceed as a pauper, which had been filed on the same date as the notice of appeal. Petitioner
now contends that the judge “returned the order granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis,”
but he also asserted in his motion for extension of time that the judge instructed petitioner that
he must pay the fee. Petitioner claims that he showed proof that he had a zero balance in his
trust account, and he appears to contend that he should therefore not be required to pay a filing
fee.
The partial record before us does not contain an order either granting or denying
petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner has provided no documentation
in support of his claim that the judge incorrectly ordered him to pay a filing fee to have the
record prepared. In any case, it is petitioner’s burden to provide a sufficient record for this court
to address the merits of his claims. Davis v. State, 2012 Ark. 70 (per curiam); see also Kennel v. State,
2014 Ark. 165 (per curiam); Bannister v. State, 2013 Ark. 412 (per curiam).
Because petitioner has not provided a record sufficient to address the merits of his
claims, he has failed to establish good cause for the procedural default. Because he has not
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. 426
established good cause, he has not met his burden for relief on a motion for rule on clerk.
Motion treated as motion for rule on clerk and denied.
Androus Hall, pro se petitioner.
No response.
3
Hall v. State
Combined Opinion