Nutt v. State
2015 Ark. 103
| Ark. | 2015Background
- Nutt filed a pro se Rule 37.1 postconviction petition challenging judgment in 55CR-11-38.
- The circuit court dismissed the petition on May 9, 2014.
- On December 18, 2014, Nutt filed a notice of appeal, untimely under Rule 2(a)(4) for lack of timely filing after dismissal.
- Nutt sought belated appeal and to add a page to the belated-appeal motion and to supplement the record with three affidavits.
- The petition was notarized but not verified as required by Rule 37.1(c); lack of verification rendered it not properly before the court.
- The court held that even if properly verified, Nutt failed to show good cause for the late appeal; thus the belated-appeal motion and related requests were dismissed as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether belated appeal should be granted | Nutt argues the petition merits consideration and merits belated relief. | State contends no good cause exists to excuse untimely filing. | Belated appeal denied; no good cause shown. |
| Whether Rule 37.1 verification was required and satisfied | Nutt asserts the petition was properly filed. | State notes petition lacked proper verification despite notarization. | Petition not properly before court due to missing verification. |
| Whether the petition was properly before the court | Nutt contends the petition should be considered. | State argues unverified petition is not properly before the court and must be dismissed. | Petition dismissed for noncompliance with Rule 37.1 verification. |
| Whether good cause supports late filing | Nutt asserts merit of Rule 37.1 petition justifies belated appeal. | State requires demonstration of acceptable reason for not following proper procedure. | No good cause shown; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adkins v. State, 2014 Ark. 349 (Ark. (2014)) (verifications required for postconviction petitions; substantial compliance matters)
- Slocum v. State, 2014 Ark. 178 (Ark. (2014)) (unverified petitions not properly before court)
- Hatton v. State, 2012 Ark. 286 (Ark. (2012)) (notarized petition lacking verification; dismissal on per curiam grounds)
- Stewart v. State, 2014 Ark. 85 (Ark. (2014)) (verification importance in postconviction relief)
- Martin v. State, 2012 Ark. 312 (Ark. (2012)) (per curiam; verification requirements emphasized)
- Williamson v. State, 2012 Ark. 170 (Ark. (2012)) (postconviction procedure compliance importance)
- Tucker v. State, 2011 Ark. 543 (Ark. (2011)) (verifications and procedural defaults in postconviction cases)
- Carey v. State, 268 Ark. 332 (Ark. 1980) (verification requirement tied to perjury prevention)
- Betts v. State, 2013 Ark. 72 (Ark. (2013)) (duty to conform to procedural rules even for pro se litigants)
- Jacobs v. State, 321 Ark. 561 (Ark. 1995) (per curiam discussions on procedural adherence)
- Alexander v. Beaumont, 275 Ark. 357 (Ark. 1982) (per curiam; emphasis on procedural conformity)