Cochise Morgan v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

No. CR 06-133

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

CHOCHISE MORGAN

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

Opinion Delivered February 23, 2006

PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL OF JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, CR 2003-2788]

MOTION DISMISSED

PER CURIAM

On January 21, 2004, judgment was entered reflecting that Chochise Morgan had entered a negotiated plea of guilty to a charge of murder in the first degree for which a sentence of 240 months' imprisonment was imposed. On February 6, 2006, Morgan filed the instant pro se motion in this court seeking leave to proceed with a belated appeal of the judgment.

The motion is dismissed. Belated appeals in criminal cases are governed by Rule 2(e) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure--Criminal. The rule provides in pertinent part that "no motion for belated appeal shall be entertained by the Supreme Court unless application has been made to the Supreme Court within eighteen (18) months of the date of entry of judgment...." Petitioner filed the motion here more than two years after the judgment was entered. An untimely motion for belated appeal is subject to dismissal. Hayes v. State, 328 Ark. 95, 940 S.W.2d 886 (1997) (per curiam).

Moreover, even if the motion had been timely filed, pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.--Crim. 1, there is ordinarily no right to appeal from a judgment entered on a plea of guilty. The exceptions are: when a conditional plea of guilty is premised on an appeal of the denial of a suppression motion pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 24.3; or, when there is a challenge to testimony or evidence presented before a jury in a sentencing hearing separate from the plea itself; when the appeal is an appeal from a post-trial motion challenging the validity and legality of the sentence itself. See Seibs v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (May 6, 2004); see also Bradford v. State, 351 Ark. 394, 94 S.W.3d 904 (2003). Petitioner's plea did not fall within any of the recognized exceptions, and we therefore would not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal of the judgment in his case.

Motion dismissed.