ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

MARCH 22, 2001

DAVID NICKLAS

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CACR 99-1321

PRO SE MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK TO FILE PETITION FOR REVIEW [CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, NO. CR 97-1830]

MOTION DENIED

David Nicklas, who proceeded pro se at trial, was found guilty of fifteen counts of forgery in the first degree and sentenced to five years' imprisonment and fined $6,000. He appealed the judgment to the court of appeals, again proceeding pro se. The court affirmed the judgment. Nicklas v. State, CACR 99-1321 (August 30, 2000). The mandate of the court was issued on September 19, 2000.

On September 21, 2000, Nicklas tendered a petition for rehearing to the court of appeals. Because the mandate had already been issued, the petition was returned to him pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R.2-3(a) which provides that a petition for rehearing must be filed within eighteen days of the date of the decision affirming the judgment. Nicklas subsequently filed a motion for rule on clerk asking the court of appeals to direct its clerk to file the petition for rehearing. The

motion was denied by Per Curiam order on October 25, 2000.

On November 6, 2000, Nicklas tendered a petition for review to this court in the case. In accordance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 2-4(a) which provides that such a petition must be filed in this court within eighteen days of the date of the court of appeals' decision, the petition was returned. On November 27, 2000, Nicklas filed a motion for rule on clerk,1 asserting that he was entitled to proceed here because he is attempting to file a entirely new appeal of the judgment, and, as a result, the eighteen-day limit on filing a petition for review does not apply. The motion for rule on clerk was denied. Nicklas v. State, CACR 99-1321 (December 7, 2000). Now before

us is Nicklas's second motion for rule on clerk in which he again asserts that he is entitled to proceed in this court because he is attempting to file an entirely new appeal for which there are no time limits.

As we said when the first motion for rule on clerk was denied, our Rule 1-2(e) provides that no appeal as a matter of right shall lie from the court of appeals to this court and that we will exercise our discretion to review an appeal decided by the court of appeals only on a petition for review. Petitioner Nicklas did not tender his petition for review until after the mandate of the court of appeals had been issued; it was thus untimely and not eligible for filing under our rules.

Motion denied.

1 For clerical purposes, the motion was filed under the docket number assigned to the direct appeal of the judgment lodged in the court of appeals.