John C. Murdock v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 06-195
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Opinion Delivered
September 21, 2006
JOHN C. MURDOCK
Appellant
PRO SE MOTION FOR PERMISSION
TO FILE BELATED BRIEF [CIRCUIT
COURT OF FAULKNER COUNTY, CR
2005-503, HON. CHARLES EDWARD
CLAWSON, JR., JUDGE]
v.
MOTION DENIED; APPEAL
DISMISSED
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Appellee
PER CURIAM
A judgment and commitment order entered July 15, 2005, indicates that appellant John C.
Murdock entered guilty pleas to possession of paraphernalia to manufacture methamphetamine,
possession of drug paraphernalia, and resisting arrest, and received an aggregate sentence of 240
months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Appellant filed in the trial court
a pro se motion to correct a clerical mistake in the order, which was denied. Appellant has now
lodged an appeal of that order in this court.
Appellant’s brief was due in this court on April 5, 2006. On April 6, 2006, appellant
tendered his brief, which our clerk declined to file because it was not timely. On July 6, 2006, the
State moved to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the brief had not been timely filed. On August
8, 2006, appellant filed this pro se motion seeking permission to file his brief belatedly. We granted
the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal pending our decision on appellant’s motion for belated brief.
Now before us for consideration is appellant’s motion.
In his motion, appellant argues that his brief was timely, asserting that he is incarcerated, and
that he had placed it in the mail by the date due. He cites the “prison mailbox rule” and a case from
the Supreme Court of Oklahoma in support of his argument. This court has previously declined to
adopt the mailbox rule that is accepted in some courts, and which provides that a pro se inmate files
his or her petition at the time the petition is placed in the hands of prison officials for mailing. See,
e.g, Hamel v. State, 338 Ark. 769, 1 S.W.3d 434 (1999). An item tendered to a court is considered
tendered on the date it is received and file marked by the clerk, not on the date it may have been
placed in the mail.
Appellant’s brief was not timely filed, and he has stated no good cause for his failure to
comply with our procedure. Accordingly, we deny his motion and dismiss the appeal.
Motion denied; appeal dismissed.
-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.
