ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 07-516
FREDRICK LEN HALE
Petitioner
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
Opinion Delivered June 7, 2007
PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED
APPEAL AND MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
[CIRCUIT COURT OF LONOKE
COUNTY, CR 2003-264, CR 2004-457,
HON. LANCE L. HANSHAW, JUDGE]
MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL
TREATED AS MOTION FOR RULE
ON CLERK AND DENIED; MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
MOOT.
PER CURIAM
In 2004, petitioner Fredrick Len Hale entered a plea of guilty to theft by deception,
kidnapping, second-degree domestic battery, aggravated assault on family or household member,
first-degree terroristic threatening, second-degree endangering the welfare of a minor, third-degree
domestic battery, and possession of a firearm. He was sentenced as a habitual offender, and received
an aggregate sentence of 144 months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. In
2006, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the trial court. The trial court denied the
petition on November 30, 2006. A pro se notice of appeal was timely filed by petitioner on
December 6, 2006. Petitioner did not tender the record to this court within ninety days of the date
of the notice of appeal as required by Ark. R. App. P.–Civil 5(a).
On May 21, 2007, petitioner filed a pro se motion for belated appeal and a motion for
appointment of counsel in this court. A motion for belated appeal is treated as a motion for rule on
Act 1780 of 2001, as amended by Act 2250 of 2005, and codified as Ark. Code Ann. §§
1
16-112-201–207 (Repl. 2006), provides that a writ of habeas corpus can issue based upon new
scientific evidence proving a person actually innocent of the offense or offenses for which he or
she was convicted.
-2-
clerk if a notice of appeal is timely filed. See Johnson v. State, 342 Ark. 709, 30 S.W.3d 715 (2000)
(per curiam); see also Muhammed v. State, 330 Ark. 759, 957 S.W.2d 692 (1997) (per curiam). We
need not consider petitioner’s grounds for the failure to tender the record in a