Chauncey Hadley v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
CR 06-986
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
CHAUNCEY HADLEY
Petitioner
VS.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Respondent
Opinion Delivered
October 26, 2006
PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED
APPEAL OF JUDGMENT OF
CONVICTION [CIRCUIT COURT OF
PULASKI COUNTY, CR 2004-02, HON.
JOHN LANGSTON, JUDGE]
MOTION DISMISSED
PER CURIAM
On January 11, 2005, judgment was entered reflecting that petitioner Chauncey Hadley had
been found guilty by a jury of rape, two counts of aggravated robbery, and two counts of kidnapping.
He was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term of 80 years’ imprisonment. No appeal
was taken from the judgment, and petitioner, proceeding pro se, now seeks leave to proceed with a
belated appeal.
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 for belated
appeal here on September 5, 2006. The eighteen-month period to file a motion for belated appeal
in the case elapsed on July 11, 2006.1
It is incumbent on a petitioner to file a motion for belated appeal in a timely manner
inasmuch as an untimely motion for belated appeal is subject to dismissal. Hayes v. State, 328 Ark.
95, 940 S.W.2d 886 (1997) (per curiam). As petitioner failed to file the motion within the period
allowed by Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 2(a), the motion is dismissed.
Motion dismissed.
1
On May 5, 2005, petitioner filed in the trial court an untimely pro se notice of appeal
from the January 11, 2005, judgment. In response to the notice of appeal, the circuit clerk
tendered a partial record to this court on July 29, 2005. A member of our staff advised petitioner
that the record had been received but that our clerk had declined to lodge it because the notice
was not timely. As stated, petitioner did not file his motion for belated appeal until
approximately thirteen months later.
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.
