Carl Tice v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
CR 06-114
Opinion Delivered
May 25, 2006
PRO SE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE POINTS FOR REVERSAL [CIRCUIT
COURT OF POPE COUNTY, CR 2003-180,
HON. DENNIS SUTTERFIELD, JUDGE]
CARL TICE
Appellant
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
MOTION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART
PER CURIAM
Appellant Carl Tice was convicted of three counts of raping his daughter. Appellant
appealed the judgment and the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Tice v. State, CACR 03-1314
(Ark. App. December 15, 2004). Appellant timely filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief
under Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, which, after appointment of counsel, was denied. An appeal from that
order is pending in this court.
Counsel appointed to represent appellant in his Rule 37.1 proceeding has now filed in this
court a brief asserting that appellant’s appeal of the order denying postconviction relief has no merit,
and requesting that he be granted permission to withdraw as counsel. While a “no-merit” brief is
typically filed in a direct appeal from a judgment, this court has allowed the filing of no-merit briefs
in postconviction appeals. See Hewitt v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (May 12, 2005) (per
curiam); Brady v. State, 346 Ark. 298, 57 S.W.3d 691 (2001) (per curiam).
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(j)(1) set
requirements for the withdrawal of counsel for a defendant in a criminal case after a notice of appeal
has been filed on the basis that an appeal is without merit. In accordance with Anders and Rule 43(j)(2), appellant was provided with a copy of the brief and motion to be relieved and notified that
he was entitled to submit within thirty days any points for reversal that he desired this court to
consider on appeal.
Appellant, who was scheduled to file his points for reversal no later than April 26, 2006,
submitted, prior to that date, a request for an extension that was not properly notarized and received
a clerk’s extension of seven days, causing the points to be due on May 3, 2006. Appellant filed the
instant motion on May 3, 2006, seeking an extension of ninety days’ time to submit the points.
This court has consistently held that an extension of time to file points for reversal in an
Anders appeal will not be granted absent a clear showing that the thirty days allowed by our rule was
not sufficient. Langford v. State, 317 Ark. 429, 877 S.W.2d 893 (1994) (per curiam), citing Reed
v. State, 278 Ark. 404, 646 S.W.2d 6 (1983) (per curiam).1 Appellant, who is in the custody of the
Arkansas Department of Correction, states that circumstances related to his incarceration have
resulted in delays concerning his research. As this is the first such extension requested by appellant,
the request is granted, although not for the ninety days requested. The appellant’s points for reversal
are due here no later than fifteen days from the date of this opinion.
Motion granted in part and denied in part.
1
Reed refers to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 11(h) which was this court’s rule respecting appeals filed
pursuant to Anders until Rule 4-3(j) replaced it on May 1, 1993. In all pertinent respects, Rule 43(j) is identical to former Rule 11(h).
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
