SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR-14-586
Opinion Delivered September 4, 2014
MICHAEL GUNDERMAN
PETITIONER PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED
APPEAL OF JUDGMENT ENTERED
V. ON REVOCATION OF PROBATION
[POPE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
STATE OF ARKANSAS NO. 57CR-11-490]
RESPONDENT
HONORABLE WILLIAM M.
PEARSON, JUDGE
MOTION DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM
In 2012, petitioner Michael Gunderman was found guilty of sexual assault in the second
degree and placed on probation. On December 10, 2012, a sentencing order was entered
reflecting that probation had been revoked, and petitioner was sentenced to thirty-six months’
imprisonment. No appeal was taken from the judgment, and petitioner, proceeding pro se, now
seeks leave to proceed with a belated appeal of the 2012 sentencing order.
Belated appeals in criminal cases are governed by Rule 2(e) of the Arkansas Rules of
Appellate Procedure—Criminal (2013). 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
first tendered the motion for belated appeal here on June 9, 2014, but he did not tender the
Cite as
certified partial record necessary to file the motion until July 2, 2014. The eighteen-month
period to file a motion for belated appeal in the instant case elapsed on June 10, 2014.
Accordingly, petitioner did not meet his burden of filing a timely motion under the Rule.
This court has consistently held that no motion for belated appeal will be considered
unless application is made within the eighteen-month period allowed by the Rule. Runion v. State,
2011 Ark. 131
(per curiam). The tender of a motion without the certified record necessary to
file it does not equate with the filing of the motion. Hayes v. State,
(1997) (per curiam) (The motion for belated appeal was dismissed because the motion was
tendered within eighteen months of the judgment but could not be filed until the certified record
was also tendered, which was outside the eighteen-month period.).
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. Gentry v. State,
(2005). As petitioner failed
to file the motion within the period allowed by Rule 2(e), the motion is dismissed.
Motion dismissed.
Michael Gunderman, pro se petitioner.
No response.
2
