SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
ALAN D. WILLIAMS,
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
Opinion Delivered June 15, 2006
PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL
Alan D. Williams filed a motion for belated appeal in the court of appeals. The court
of appeals certified the motion to this court because, pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.--Crim. 2(e),
the supreme court may act upon and decide a case in which the notice of appeal was not
timely. Williams filed this motion for belated appeal seeking relief after the court of appeals
granted a motion to dismiss his prior appeal for failure to timely file a notice of appeal.
This case arises from a conditional plea of guilty under Ark. R. Crim P. 24.3 On
November 1, 2004, a hearing was held in the circuit court on Williams’s motion to suppress.
The motion was denied that day, and Williams’ attorney, Sky Tapp, subsequently filed a
notice of appeal from the Order of Conditional Plea entered on November 1, 2004. However,
the judgment was not entered until December 17, 2004, and Tapp never filed a notice of
appeal from that judgment.
A conditional plea under Rule 24.3 provides the right to appeal from the “judgment,”
and this court has made clear that the appeal must be taken from the judgment and not the
order denying the motion to suppress. See Hill v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Oct.
13, 2005). Consistent with this law, the court of appeals granted the motion to dismiss.
Williams now moves to be allowed a belated appeal on the basis that he has a right
to an appeal, and that the fault for failure to file a timely notice of appeal lies with his
attorney. “Relief from failure to perfect an appeal is provided as part of the appellate
procedure granting the right to an appeal.” McDonald v. State, 256 Ark. 106, 111, 146
S.W.3d 883, 887 (2004). Further, under Rule 2(e), an attorney or a criminal defendant may
seek relief when he or she is not at fault for the failure to perfect the appeal and where good