Sillivan v. Hobbs
2014 Ark. 88
| Ark. | 2014Background
- In 2013, Sillivan filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Lincoln County Circuit Court where he was incarcerated.
- The circuit court granted the petition in part and denied it in part; no appeal was taken.
- Sillivan seeks leave to proceed with a belated appeal under Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Civil 4(a).
- He asserts functional illiteracy and reliance on a fellow inmate who was transferred prevented timely filing.
- He argues the relief requested in his habeas petition should have been granted in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Good cause required for belated appeal | Sillivan asserts barriers justify belated filing. | State contends no good cause shown. | No good cause; belated appeal denied. |
| Pro se status excuses procedural rules | Sillivan contends incarceration and illiteracy excuse noncompliance. | Court rejects exemption for incarceration; rules apply to all. | Pro se status does not excuse rule compliance; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDaniel v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 107 (Ark. 2013) (burden to conform to procedural rules; no special consideration for pro se)
- Wesley v. Harmon, 2010 Ark. 21 (Ark. 2010) (belated appeal requires good cause)
- McClain v. Norris, 2009 Ark. 428 (Ark. 2009) (per curiam postconviction relief guidance)
- Scott v. State, 281 Ark. 436, 664 S.W.2d 475 (1984) (per curiam; procedural rules govern postconviction appeals)
- Smith v. State, 2011 Ark. 367 (Ark. 2011) (no special consideration for pro se litigants)
- Ross v. State, 2011 Ark. 270 (Ark. 2011) (application of procedural rules to postconviction relief)
- Wright v. State, 2010 Ark. 474 (Ark. 2010) (per curiam; adherence to timelines)
- Cummings v. State, 2010 Ark. 123 (Ark. 2010) (procedural compliance requirement reiterated)
- Hale v. State, 2010 Ark. 17 (Ark. 2010) (per curiam; procedural rule enforcement)
- Daniels v. State, 2009 Ark. 607 (Ark. 2009) (per curiam; postconviction procedure controls)
- Peterson v. State, 289 Ark. 452, 711 S.W.2d 830 (Ark. 1986) (historical guidance on belated appeals)
- Walker v. State, 283 Ark. 339, 676 S.W.2d 460 (Ark. 1984) (per curiam; emphasizes rule compliance)
- Thompson v. State, 280 Ark. 163, 655 S.W.2d 424 (Ark. 1983) (per curiam; procedural requirements upheld)