ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 06-213
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
FREDERICK PENNINGTON, JR.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Opinion Delivered June 29, 2006
PRO SE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF MOTION
FOR BELATED APPEAL AND
REVIEW OF CERTIFIED RECORD
[CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI
COUNTY, CR 77-1933, CR 77-1934, CR
77-1939, HON. JOHN W. LANGSTON,
In 1978, petitioner Frederick Pennington, Jr. entered a guilty plea to capital felony murder,
first-degree battery, and multiple counts of aggravated robbery, and received an aggregate sentence
of life imprisonment. He filed a pro se pleading in the trial court, in 2005, entitled “New Rule of
Law for Mandamus Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea.” The trial court denied the pleading’s request
for relief and petitioner tendered the record to this court on appeal. Our clerk correctly declined to
lodge the record because no notice of appeal was filed within thirty days from entry of the order, and
we denied petitioner’s motion for belated appeal. Pennington v. State, CR 06-213 (Ark. April 6,
2006) (per curiam).
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying his motion for belated
appeal, which this court also denied. Pennington v. State, CR 06-213 (Ark. May 4, 2006) (per
curiam). Now before us is petitioner’s pleading titled “Motion for Review of Certified Record,” in
which he urges us once again to permit a belated appeal and appears to alternatively argue that we
should review the entire record, whether or not a belated appeal is granted, and grant petitioner a new
trial or modify his sentence. Petitioner further requests a certified copy of the record for a writ of
certiorari review by the United States Supreme Court.
Petitioner’s new motion once again fails to state any good cause to grant a belated appeal.
He argues that he was entitled to have an attorney appointed to him, and, apparently further asserts
that the attorney who should have been appointed would have been responsible fo