Danny Lee Ragsdale v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

JANUARY 25, 2001

DANNY LEE RAGSDALE

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 00-704

PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL OF JUDGMENT [CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY, NO. CR 96-111, HON. DAVID BURNETT, JUDGE]

APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF INDIGENCY DENIED

On May 14, 1997, Danny Lee Ragsdale was found guilty by a jury in the Circuit Court of Greene County of terroristic threatening in the second degree and sentenced to a term of seventy-two months' imprisonment. An appeal bond in the amount of $25,000 was set. Ragsdale's retained attorney, Richard Grasby, filed a notice of appeal on May 28, 1997. An appeal was not perfected, and Ragsdale sought by pro se motion filed June 13, 2000, to proceed with a belated appeal of the judgment pursuant to Rule 2(e) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure--Criminal, which permits a belated appeal in a criminal case in some instances.

Although Rule 2 provides that a motion for belated appeal must be filed within eighteen months of the date sentence was pronounced in those cases where the judgment was not entered within ten days of the pronouncement of sentence, we considered Ragsdale's motion for belatedappeal because his attorney had filed a notice of appeal and an appeal bond had been set. Under those circumstances, we said that Ragsdale may well have believed that the appeal was on-going. Because there were questions of fact to be resolved, we remanded the matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. Ragsdale v. State, 341 Ark. 744, 19 S.W.3d 744 (2000).

After the trial court's findings were returned, we concluded that, pursuant to Rule 16 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure--Criminal, Grasby had failed to provide effective assistance of counsel to Ragsdale pertaining to the appeal of the judgment and granted the motion to proceed with a belated appeal. Ragsdale v. State, CR 00-704 (November 9, 2000). We could not make a determination on Ragsdale's claim of indigency because the trial court did not make specific findings on whether Ragsdale is indigent. As a result, the matter was again remanded to the trial court for additional findings on that issue. The court's findings are now before us.

The trial court was unable to obtain information on Ragsdale's financial situation because he refused to provide his financial records to the court. As the burden of demonstrating indigency is on the petitioner claiming to be indigent, the court correctly found that Ragsdale has failed to prove that he is indigent. Nevertheless, the court noted that the record on appeal has been prepared at public expense and mailed to Grasby, who remains Ragsdale's retained attorney. We accept the trial court's findings and direct Mr. Grasby to lodge the record in the court of appeals within thirty days of the date of this opinion.

Claim of indigency denied.