Wade v. State, 2014 Ark. 492

Shane Donovan Wade filed a timely Rule 37.1 petition (March 14, 2014) challenging his 2011 aggravated-robbery conviction; the trial court dismissed it April 21, 2014 for lack of proper verification.
Wade filed a motion for reconsideration the same day asserting the petition was properly verified; the trial court denied reconsideration on May 27, 2014.
Wade filed a notice of appeal on May 29, 2014 seeking to appeal the April 21 dismissal and contending the notice was timely because the motion for reconsideration extended the appeal period.
The clerk declined to lodge the record in this Court because the notice of appeal was not timely under Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 2(a)(4); Wade moved here for the clerk to lodge the record (treated as a motion for belated appeal) and separately for the full record at public expense.
The Supreme Court treated the lodge request as a belated-appeal motion, concluded the motion for reconsideration did not raise an unresolved/omitted issue that would extend the appeal deadline under the narrow Rule 37.2(d) exception, and denied both the belated-appeal motion and the request for publicly funded copies.

Issue	Wade's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Wade’s May 29 notice of appeal was timely because the motion for reconsideration extended the appeal period	The motion for reconsideration asked for rulings on omitted issues and thus tolled/extended the appeal deadline	The motion merely asked the court to change a decision it had already made (verification question) and did not seek rulings on unresolved issues	The motion did not qualify under the narrow Rule 37.2(d) exception; the notice was untimely
Whether this Court should allow a belated appeal for good cause under Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 2(e)	Wade effectively argued equitable grounds and asserted his notice was timely	The State relied on procedural rules; lack of a showing of good cause	Denied — Wade did not show good cause or an excuse for the late filing
Whether Wade is entitled to copies of the circuit-court record at public expense	Wade asserted indigency and need for file-marked motions to pursue his appeal	The State asserted no basis because appeal was not allowed and indigency alone is insufficient	Denied — no compelling need shown and no timely postconviction matter pending that would justify public copying

Khabir v. State, 439 S.W.3d 679 (Ark. 2014) (per curiam) (indigency alone does not entitle a petitioner to free copying; must show compelling need)