Butler v. State
2015 Ark. 173
Ark.2015Background:
- Joe E. Butler was convicted in Pulaski County in 2011 in two separate dockets (60CR-10-2297 and 60CR-10-2468) and sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate 240 months.
- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed those convictions in Butler v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 708.
- Butler timely filed a pro se Rule 37.1 petition on January 10, 2012, listing both docket numbers; the trial court denied relief by separate orders entered April 16, 2012.
- Butler filed a notice of appeal on April 23, 2012, which mistakenly designated the order date as March 1, 2012, and bore both docket numbers.
- On February 25, 2015, Butler filed a pro se motion in the Supreme Court for a belated appeal as to docket 60CR-10-2297, asserting lack of counsel in the Rule 37.1 proceeding, inadequate written findings by the trial court, and insufficiency of the evidence.
- The Supreme Court treated the filing as a motion for rule on clerk, found no good cause shown for the untimely tender of the record under Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 4(b), and denied the motion.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a clerical error in the notice of appeal (wrong date) justifies granting a belated appeal | Butler suggested the date error was inadvertent and he intended to appeal the April 16, 2012 order | State: procedural rules require timely perfection; clerical errors do not excuse failure to perfect without good cause | Court treated as possible scrivener’s error but said even if so, Butler failed to show good cause for late tender of the record, so belated appeal denied |
| Whether Butler’s lack of counsel in the Rule 37.1 proceeding excuses failure to perfect the appeal | Butler argued he was not afforded counsel and thus could not perfect the appeal | State argued appellant bears the burden to perfect appeal; lack of counsel does not relieve procedural obligations | Court held pro se status or absence of counsel does not excuse failure to comply with appellate procedure or establish good cause |
| Whether the trial court’s Rule 37.1 written findings were inadequate | Butler asserted the court failed to make adequate written findings as required by the Rule | State implied procedural default and failure to pursue timely appeal prevents consideration | Court did not reach merits because procedural default (no good cause) barred belated appeal |
| Whether sufficiency-of-evidence claim supports belated appeal | Butler claimed evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction | State: procedural defects do not excuse failure to perfect appeal timely | Court declined to reach sufficiency claim due to procedural failure to show good cause for late record tender |
Key Cases Cited
- Parker v. State, 2014 Ark. 542 (per curiam) (a mistaken date in a notice of appeal may be a scrivener’s error if a timely appeal corresponds to an order in the record)
- Lenard v. State, 2014 Ark. 248 (per curiam) (treating similar notice-date errors as likely scrivener’s errors)
- Nelson v. State, 2013 Ark. 316 (per curiam) (appellant, even pro se, must establish good cause for failure to comply with appellate procedure)
- Walker v. State, 283 Ark. 339 (1984) (per curiam) (ignorance of procedural rules does not excuse noncompliance)
- Meadows v. State, 2012 Ark. 374 (per curiam) (it is not the duty of clerks or courts to perfect a party’s appeal)