See McCullough v. State, CR 05-723 (Ark. September 22, 2005) (per curiam), wherein
1
we denied a petition for writ of mandamus filed in this court by petitioner requesting that this
court direct the trial court to act on his motion for new trial.
Petitioner now claims that he attempted to prevent the trial court from ruling on the
2
motion for new trial, but in the petition for writ of mandamus filed in this court, he sought a
decision by the trial court on the motion.
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 06-704
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
WALTER MCCULLOUGH
Petitioner
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
Opinion Delivered September 21, 2006
PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED
APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF
CRAIGHEAD COUNTY, CR 2004-840,
HON. VICTOR LAMONT HILL,
JUDGE]
MOTION DENIED
PER CURIAM
Walter McCullough was convicted by a jury of a terroristic act and first-degree battery, and
received an aggregate sentence of 960 months’ imprisonment. The judgment and commitment order
was filed on April 27, 2005. Although represented by trial counsel, petitioner filed in the trial court
a pro se motion for new trial. The trial court did not act on the motion and it was thus deemed
denied by operation of law on the thirtieth day. Before us now is petitioner’s pro se motion for
1
belated appeal of the denial of petitioner’s motion for new trial pursuant to Ark. R. App. P. – Crim.
2(e).
In the motion for belated appeal, petitioner argues that “errant handling” of pleadings by the
circuit court clerk resulted in the “illegal denial” of his motion for new trial. He further claims that
2
This appeal is currently pending before the Arkansas Court of Appeals in case number
3
CACR 05-1183.
The record does not reflect that any order was filed on that date. Petitioner’s motion for
4
new trial was filed in the trial court on April 29, 2005, and again on May 12, 2005. As the trial
court did not act upon the motion, petitioner’s motion was deemed denied, without entry of an
order, on May 29, 2005. In order to be timely, petitioner