O'Neal v. State
2016 Ark. 94
Ark.2016Background
- Joseph O’Neal (pro se) challenged his 1994 convictions (murder, robbery, burglary) by filing a petition to correct an illegal sentence in Chicot County; the petition was dismissed by the circuit court on May 26, 2015, as untimely.
- No notice of appeal for the May 26, 2015 order appears in the record and O’Neal does not claim he filed one within the 30-day Rule 2(a) period.
- O’Neal filed a pro se motion in the Arkansas Supreme Court seeking permission for a belated appeal, asserting he was unaware of the dismissal until he obtained a certified record after October 30, 2015.
- He alleged possible "backdating" of filings but provided no factual support and argued his attempts at mandamus and obtaining records showed diligence.
- The court evaluated whether O’Neal established the "good cause" required under Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 2(e) to excuse his failure to timely file a notice of appeal and concluded he did not demonstrate the required diligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether O’Neal established good cause for a belated appeal under Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 2(e) | O’Neal: unaware of the circuit-court dismissal until he obtained a certified record; alleged filings were backdated and pointed to his mandamus attempts and record requests as diligence | State: no proof of any mandatory court/clerk failure to notify; pro se litigant must still exercise reasonable diligence and show good cause | Denied — O’Neal failed to show good cause; lack of inquiry/diligence fatal |
| Whether lack of notice by court/clerk alone constitutes good cause | O’Neal implies he did not receive timely notice | State: absent a mandatory duty to notify under Rule 37.3(d), lack of notice alone is not good cause | Held: Only failures where court/clerk had mandatory notice duty may excuse delay; here no such duty, so notice failure alone insufficient |
| Standard of diligence required of pro se litigants | O’Neal relied on attempts to compel ruling and clerical actions as diligence | State: pro se litigants are held to same reasonable-diligence standard as attorneys | Held: Pro se litigant did not show reasonable diligence (no inquiries to court/clerk), so procedural default stands |
| Burden to establish good cause to excuse procedural rules | O’Neal contends mistakes and confusion justify excusing the rules | State: burden on petitioner to show good cause despite pro se status | Held: Burden not met; procedural rules must be followed or good cause shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Clay v. State, 2015 Ark. 352 (per curiam) (belated appeal available for good cause)
- Green v. State, 2015 Ark. 198 (per curiam) (court/clerk’s mandatory failure to notify may excuse late appeal)
- Nelson v. State, 2013 Ark. 316 (per curiam) (same principle regarding mandatory notice duties)
- Barber v. State, 2015 Ark. 267 (per curiam) (absence of mandatory notice duty means lack of notice alone is not good cause)
- Early v. Hobbs, 2015 Ark. 313 (per curiam) (burden on petitioner, including pro se, to show good cause for procedural defaults)
- Miller v. State, 2013 Ark. 182 (per curiam) (pro se litigants held to same procedural-diligence standards as attorneys)
Motion denied.