Demarco Raynor v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT No. NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION DEMARCO RAYNOR Petitioner CR 06-655 Opinion Delivered June 29, 2006 PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF LONOKE COUNTY, CR 99-5, HON. LANCE LAMAR HANSHAW, JUDGE] v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Respondent MOTION DENIED PER CURIAM A jury found petitioner Demarco Raynor guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced him to life imprisonment. This court affirmed the judgment. Raynor v. State, 343 Ark. 575, 36 S.W.3d 315 (2001). Petitioner then filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, which was denied by order entered January 14, 2005. Petitioner has now tendered a partial record to this court, and brings this motion requesting belated appeal of that order. A petitioner has the right to appeal a ruling on a petition for postconviction relief. See Scott v. State, 281 Ark. 436, 664 S.W.2d 475 (1984) (per curiam). However, along with that right, goes the responsibility to timely file a notice of appeal within thirty days of the date the order was entered in accordance with Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 4 (a). The partial record before us shows that the notice of appeal was filed on February 24, 2005, forty-one days after the order was entered. If a petitioner fails to timely file a notice of appeal, a belated appeal will not be allowed absent a showing by the petitioner of good cause for the failure to comply with proper procedure. Garner v. State, 293 Ark. 309, 737 S.W.2d 637 (1987) (per curiam). Petitioner appears to attribute the delay in filing to the circuit clerk for failing to process his appeal, indicating he did not receive a response to questions concerning the need to submit a request to proceed in forma pauperis. It is not the duty of the circuit clerk, or the responsibility of anyone other than the petitioner, to perfect an appeal. See Sullivan v. State, 301 Ark. 352, 784 S.W.2d 155 (1990) (per curiam); Bragg v. State, 297 Ark. 348, 760 S.W.2d 878 (1988) (per curiam). Petitioner has failed to show good cause for the delay. Motion denied. -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.