Bobby Morgan v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT  No.  CR 07-967 Opinion Delivered  BOBBY MORGAN Appellant v. STATE OF ARKANSAS Appellee  March 13, 2008  PRO SE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL OF APPEAL [CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY, CR 2004-182, HON. JOHN N. FOGLEMAN, JUDGE] MOTION DENIED.  PER CURIAM  Appellant Bobby Morgan was convicted of rape and incest following a trial to the court and  the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 360 months’ imprisonment.  The Arkansas  Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.  Morgan v. State, CACR 06­713 (Ark. App. Apr. 4, 2007).  Appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition for postconviction relief under Ark. R. Crim. P.  37.1, which was denied.  Appellant lodged an appeal of that order in this court, and we dismissed the  appeal.  Morgan v. State, CR 07­967 (Ark. Dec. 13, 2007) (per curiam).  Appellant now brings this motion in which he asserts that we should reconsider our decision  to dismiss the appeal and instruct the trial court to allow him to proceed with his Rule 37.1 petition.  He asserts that his claims were meritorious and that the trial court, and presumably this court, denied  him his constitutional right of access to the courts by refusing to consider his postconviction petition  and grant him a hearing.  He also vaguely asserts violation of due process and other constitutional  rights, but without developing those arguments.  This court does not research or develop arguments for appellants.  Hester v. State, 362 Ark. 373, 208 S.W.3d 747 (2005).  As to appellant’s claim that he is denied access to the courts on his Rule 37 claims by our  dismissal of the appeal, we find that argument is without merit.  There is no constitutional right to  a postconviction proceeding.  Robinson v. State, 295 Ark. 693, 751 S.W.2d 335 (1988); see also  Engram  v.  State,  360  Ark.  140,  200  S.W.3d  367  (2004).    Where  one  is  provided,  due  process  requires that the proceeding be fundamentally fair.  Robinson, 295 Ark. at 699, 751 S.W.2d at 339.  In Robinson, this court determined that a requirement that a petition must meet certain threshold  requirements was fundamentally fair.  Appellant asserts that pro se litigants are not held to the same standards as attorneys and  that  attorneys are not required to comply with our rules of procedure.  He is mistaken.  All litigants,  including  those  who  proceed  pro  se,  must  bear  responsibility  for  conforming  to  the  rules  of  procedure.  See  Sullivan  v.  State,  301  Ark.  352,  784  S.W.2d  155  (1990)  (per    curiam)  (citing  Peterson v. State, 289 Ark. 452, 711 S.W.2d 830 (1986) (per curiam)).  See also Tarry v. State, 353  Ark. 158, 114 S.W.3d 161 (2003) (per curiam).  As we noted in our opinion dismissing the appeal, appellant did not comply with our rules of  procedure in that he failed to file his petition within the required time.  Moreover, the time limitations  imposed in Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.2(c) are jurisdictional in nature, and the trial court would have erred  to consider the merits of the petition or to have granted a hearing.  Womack v. State, 368 Ark. 341,  ___ S.W.3d ___ (2006) (per curiam).  The petition did meet our threshold requirements of procedure  and appellant has stated no basis for us to reconsider our previous decision.  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.