ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 05-1042
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Opinion Delivered June 15, 2006
PRO SE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL
OF APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF
CRITTENDEN COUNTY, CR 2005-89,
HON. DAVID N. LASER, JUDGE]
The Crittenden County Circuit Court entered an order that found that appellant Archie Ross
was convicted of certain criminal charges in West Memphis District Court on December 1, 2004,
dismissed appellant’s appeal of that conviction because that appeal had not been filed in the Circuit
Court within 30 days as required by Inferior Ct. R. 9 and remanded to the district court to enforce
the judgment. Appellant lodged an appeal of that order in this court.
Appellant, who was proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sought an extension of time
to file the appellant’s brief and access to a copy of the record to prepare the brief. We granted
appellant access to the record and an extension, with the brief due on February 21, 2006. Ross v.
State, CR 05-1042 (Ark. January 12, 2006) (per curiam). On February 28, 2006, appellant filed a
pro se motion for access to a hearing transcript and to extend the time to file appellant’s brief. On
March 10, 2006, appellant filed a pro se motion for leave to file a belated brief. Because appellant
A motion to extend the brief time tendered after the date to file a brief has passed would
not ordinarily be filed. An appellant is required to seek that relief, instead, through a motion for
belated brief. Here, appellant also sought other relief in the motion. Because the motion sought
other relief, and, in addition, appellant did file a motion for belated brief, we permitted the
tendered motion to extend the brief time to be filed.
Appellant has captioned his motion, and included references in his motion, as if the
proceedings in this court were before the Arkansas Court of Appeals, which is not the case.
did not file his motion to extend the ti