ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No. CR 06-1133
MARCUS HANCOCK
Appellant
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
Opinion Delivered May 31, 2007
PRO SE MOTION TO FILE BELATED
BRIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF
ARKANSAS COUNTY, NORTHERN
DISTRICT, CR 2004-294, CR 2004-346,
CR 2005-106, HON. DAVID G. HENRY,
JUDGE]
MOTION GRANTED.
PER CURIAM
As reflected in judgment and commitment orders entered March 15, 2006, appellant Marcus
Hancock entered negotiated pleas of guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, possession
of cocaine with intent to deliver, and delivery of marijuana. The negotiated plea also included a plea
to a charge of delivery of cocaine, CR 2005-105, but no judgment as to that charge is included in the
record before us. Appellant was sentenced to seventy-two months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas
Department of Correction on the possession of marijuana charge, 180 months’ imprisonment on the
possession of cocaine charge, and seventy-two months’ imprisonment on the delivery charge, with those
sentences and the sentence on CR 2005-105 to run concurrently. Appellant timely filed in the trial court
a petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, which was denied. Appellant lodged
an appeal of that order in this court and received one extension of time in which to file his brief.
Hancock v. State, CR 06-1133 (Ark. Jan. 18, 2007) (per curiam). Appellant, however, failed to timely
file his brief and now submits his pro se motion requesting this court to permit him to file a belated brief.
-2-
Appellant had received a copy of the record in response to a pleading that we treated as a motion
for access. Hancock v. State, CR 06-1133 (Ark. Feb. 15, 2007) (per curiam). He returned that copy
of the record, as required, on the date the brief was due, April 2, 2007. However, appellant’s brief was
not tendered until four days later, April 6, 2007. When tendered, the brief did not comply with our rules
because it failed to include copies of the Rule 37.1 petition or the notice of appeal. In