Howard v. Webber, 2017 Ark. 89

Petitioner Curtis Ray Howard, an inmate, filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in Lee County Circuit Court on July 1, 2016 seeking release; the petition was denied by order entered August 2, 2016.
Howard filed a notice of appeal that was untimely (filed September 5, 2016); the 30-day appeal period expired September 1, 2016 under Ark. R. App. P. — Civ. 4(a).
Howard moved for leave to proceed with a belated appeal, asserting he deposited his notice in the prison mail on August 2, 2016 and relying on the federal “prison mailbox rule” from Houston v. Lack.
The record contradicted Howard’s timeline: his notice was signed August 26, the envelope postmarked September 1, and the clerk’s certification dated September 15.
The court explained Arkansas has specific criminal-rule mailbox provisions for incarcerated filers but those provisions do not apply to all civil filings; Houston interprets federal procedure and does not automatically govern this Court’s belated-appeal decisions.
The Court found Howard did not show good cause for the late filing or explain the delay and denied the motion for belated appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a belated appeal should be allowed for an untimely notice of appeal from denial of habeas corpus	Howard: his notice was mailed Aug 2 and should be timely under the prison-mailbox rule	Respondents: record shows later mailing/filing dates and no justification for delay	Denied — petitioner failed to show good cause for late filing
Whether the federal Houston v. Lack mailbox rule makes Howard’s filing timely in this Court	Howard: Houston makes a prisoner’s mailing-date the filing date	Respondents: Houston interprets a federal rule and does not control this Court’s belated-appeal determinations	Court: Houston is not dispositive here; Arkansas rules govern and no applicable mailbox provision made this filing timely
Whether Arkansas rules provide an incarcerated filer an automatic mailbox filing date for this civil habeas appeal	Howard: implied that prison-mail rule should apply	Respondents: Arkansas criminal rules with mailbox provisions apply only to Rule 37/criminal appeals, not to other civil filings	Court: No applicable Arkansas rule extended the filing date; petitioner did not meet burden
Whether pro se status excuses procedural noncompliance	Howard: pro se filing should receive leniency	Respondents: procedural rules apply to pro se litigants	Court: Pro se litigants receive no special treatment; must show good cause

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (established the federal "prison mailbox rule" treating delivery to prison authorities as filing for federal appeals)
Key v. State, 297 Ark. 111, 759 S.W.2d 567 (Ark. 1988) (Houston interprets a federal rule and is not automatically controlling for this Court's filing or belated-appeal decisions)