Eason v. State, 2017 Ark. 160

Christopher Allan Eason, Sr. was convicted by a jury of nine counts of first-degree battery and sentenced to 3,240 months’ imprisonment; judgment entered February 24, 2014, and amended sentencing order entered February 27, 2014.
No direct appeal was taken following sentencing.
Eason, proceeding pro se, sought leave to pursue a belated appeal and requested appointment of counsel on appeal.
He initially tendered a motion for belated appeal on September 8, 2015, but did not tender the certified partial record required to file the motion until February 23, 2017.
Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure—Criminal 2(e) requires a motion for belated appeal be made within 18 months of entry of judgment; the 18-month deadline expired on August 27, 2015.
The Supreme Court dismissed the belated-appeal motion as untimely and ruled the motion for appointment of counsel moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court should entertain a belated appeal filed more than 18 months after entry of judgment	Eason argued he should be allowed to proceed with a belated appeal despite delay	State argued Rule 2(e) requires application within 18 months and Eason failed to comply	Motion for belated appeal dismissed for failing to meet the 18-month filing requirement
Whether tendering a motion without the certified record satisfies Rule 2(e) requirements	Eason treated his September 2015 tender as timely despite lacking the certified record until 2017	State relied on precedent that tendering a motion without the certified record does not constitute filing within the 18-month period	Court held tendering without the certified record does not satisfy the Rule; motion untimely
Whether equitable considerations justify excusing the late filing	Eason implicitly sought equitable relief by filing late and later providing the record	State contended strict compliance with Rule 2(e) is required and untimely motions are subject to dismissal	Court reaffirmed strict adherence to the 18-month rule; no exception granted
Whether counsel should be appointed for the belated appeal request	Eason requested appointment of counsel to pursue appeal	State did not contest mootness if belated-appeal motion dismissed	Appointment of counsel denied as moot because belated-appeal motion was dismissed

Gunderman v. State, 2014 Ark. 354 (per curiam) (no belated-appeal motion considered if not filed within 18-month period)
Runion v. State, 2011 Ark. 131 (per curiam) (same—strict 18-month requirement)
Hayes v. State, 328 Ark. 95 (1997) (per curiam) (tendering a motion within 18 months without the certified record does not satisfy filing requirement)
Gentry v. State, 2010 Ark. 18 (per curiam) (untimely motions for belated appeal are subject to dismissal)
Douglas v. State, 2009 Ark. 468 (per curiam) (same—timeliness is incumbent on petitioner)
Croston v. State, 2012 Ark. 183 (per curiam) (reinforcing dismissal of untimely belated-appeal motions)
Bennett v. State, 362 Ark. 411 (per curiam) (same principle regarding timeliness of belated-appeal motions)