Barber v. State
2015 Ark. 267
Ark.2015Background
- Tommy Martez Barber, a pro se inmate in Hot Spring County, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in circuit court in 2014; the petition was denied by order entered January 15, 2015.
- Barber did not file a notice of appeal within 30 days; he filed an untimely notice on March 4, 2015 and sought leave to proceed with a belated appeal.
- Barber asserted he did not receive notice of the January 15 order until January 22, was placed in punitive isolation January 26, was denied a notice-of-appeal form by a program coordinator, and was blocked from the prison law library, prompting a grievance.
- The clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Court declined to lodge the appeal record because no timely notice of appeal was included.
- The question before the court was whether Barber demonstrated good cause to excuse the late filing and permit a belated appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner has good cause to permit a belated appeal from denial of habeas | Barber: late receipt of order, disciplinary isolation, denial of forms and law-library access prevented timely filing | State/Clerk: petitioner must timely file; pro se status and incarceration do not excuse failure; responsibility rests with appellant | Denied — no good cause shown; belated appeal not allowed |
| Whether failure to receive notice of the denial within 30 days constitutes good cause | Barber: did not get notice until 7 days after entry, so could not file within 30 days | Court: no absolute duty on clerk or judge to notify in habeas cases; litigants must monitor case status | Denied — late receipt alone is not good cause |
| Whether prison officials’ conduct (denial of forms, law library, isolation) excuses untimely filing | Barber: disciplinary actions and denial of resources prevented obtaining forms and filing | Court: the duty to perfect appeal rests with appellant, not clerk or others; pro se inmates held to same standard | Denied — those barriers do not establish excusing cause |
| Whether pro se status or incarceration alone justify special treatment for filing deadlines | Barber: implied that pro se/incarcerated status hindered compliance | State: pro se and incarceration do not constitute good cause per precedent | Denied — no special consideration; held to same standard as attorneys |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. State, 281 Ark. 436 (right to appeal denial of postconviction relief)
- Garner v. State, 293 Ark. 163 (belated appeals require showing of good cause)
- Walker v. State, 283 Ark. 339 (pro se status or incarceration alone do not constitute good cause)
- Sullivan v. State, 301 Ark. 352 (appellant, not clerk, is responsible to perfect appeal)
- Harris v. Boyd G. Montgomery Testamentary Trust, 370 Ark. 518 (pro se appellants held to same standard as attorneys)
- Arnold v. Camden News Publishing Co., 353 Ark. 522 (diligence required in monitoring case status)
- Elliott v. State, 342 Ark. 237 (same)