Porchia v. State
2016 Ark. 403
| Ark. | 2016Background
- In 2013, Willie R. Porchia, Sr. was convicted by a jury of four counts of delivery of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a church and was sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive 120-month terms for each offense and each proximity enhancement.
- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed; mandate issued December 9, 2014.
- Porchia filed a pro se Rule 37.1 petition for postconviction relief on February 19, 2015 (72 days after the mandate); the trial court dismissed it on March 20, 2015 as untimely.
- On June 1, 2015 (73 days after dismissal), Porchia filed a pro se “petition for review” challenging the timeliness ruling; the trial court denied that petition on December 17, 2015.
- Porchia filed a notice of appeal on January 8, 2016 and sought leave to proceed with a belated appeal of the March 20, 2015 order because he had not filed a timely notice of appeal within 30 days of the dismissal.
- The Supreme Court of Arkansas denied the motion for leave to proceed with a belated appeal, concluding Porchia failed to show good cause for his untimely notice of appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Porchia is entitled to a belated appeal of the Rule 37.1 dismissal because he missed the 30-day appeal deadline | Porchia argued he had good cause and sought leave for a belated appeal because he filed a Rule 37.1 petition and later a petition for review | State: Rule requires notice of appeal within 30 days; petition for review filed later does not substitute for timely notice; belated appeal requires showing good cause | Denied — Porchia failed to show good cause for missing the 30-day appeal deadline and the petition for review did not substitute for a timely notice of appeal |
| Whether filing a petition for review substitutes for a timely notice of appeal | Porchia treated the petition for review as addressing the dismissal and preserving appellate rights | State: A petition for review filed after the 30-day window cannot substitute for the required notice of appeal | Held: Petition for review filed 73 days after dismissal does not cure failure to file a timely notice of appeal (Shoemate rule applies) |
| Whether Martinez/Trevino require appointment of counsel for Rule 37.1 proceedings, excusing late appeal filing | Porchia relied on Martinez v. Ryan and Trevino to argue counsel should have been appointed in postconviction proceedings, supporting equitable excuse | State: Martinez/Trevino do not automatically require appointment of counsel in Arkansas Rule 37.1 proceedings | Held: Martinez/Trevino do not entitle Porchia to appointment of counsel for Rule 37.1; Arkansas precedent declines to adopt automatic appointment in such proceedings |
| Whether the court’s later adoption of a prison-mailbox rule entitled Porchia to relief for his untimely filing | Porchia argued he lacked benefit of the prison mailbox rule adopted after his filing and that this explains his untimeliness | State: Porchia did not show he was prevented from timely filing or that the mailbox rule applied to his situation | Held: The mailbox-rule adoption (effective Sept. 1, 2015) did not provide a basis for relief because Porchia did not show he timely delivered a notice to prison mail system or that he lacked notice of the dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Dennis v. State, 481 S.W.3d 432 (Ark. 2016) (Rule 2(a) thirty-day appeal deadline and belated-appeal standards)
- Shoemate v. State, 339 Ark. 403 (Ark. 1999) (a late petition for review does not substitute for a timely notice of appeal)
- Watson v. State, 444 S.W.3d 835 (Ark. 2014) (Martinez/Trevino do not mandate appointment of counsel in Rule 37 proceedings in Arkansas)
- Mancia v. State, 459 S.W.3d 259 (Ark. 2015) (same)
- Bean v. State, 2014 Ark. 440 (Ark. 2014) (petitioner has right to appeal Rule 37 ruling but must show good cause for untimely notice)
- Miller v. State, 2013 Ark. 182 (Ark. 2013) (pro se status does not excuse procedural defaults; litigants must follow rules or show good cause)
- Lovett v. State, 2013 Ark. 8 (Ark. 2013) (limited exception allowing motions to address omitted issues in Rule 37 orders)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2012) (discussing ineffective assistance of counsel in initial-review collateral proceedings as cause in federal habeas context)