ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

OCTOBER 30, 2003

JOSEPH ENKOFF

Petitioner

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

Respondent

CR 03-975

PRO SE MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK TO PROCEED WITH BELATED APPEAL OF ORDER [CIRCUIT COURT OF SEBASTIAN COUNTY, FT. SMITH DISTRICT, CR 2001-139-B, HON. MICHAEL FITZHUGH, JUDGE]

MOTION DENIED

Per Curiam

In 2001, Joseph Enkoff was found guilty by a jury of aggravated robbery, theft of property, and fleeing. An aggregate sentence of 492 months' imprisonment was imposed. He appealed the conviction for theft of property only, and the court of appeals affirmed. Enkoff v. State, CACR 02-491 (Ark. App. February 26, 2003).

Enkoff subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37.1 in the trial court which was denied on April 2, 2003. Petitioner Enkoff filed a timely notice of appeal on April 15, 2003, but he did not tender the record to this court until July 21, 2003, which was not within the ninety-day period allowed for lodging a record under Rule 5(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure-Civil. Petitioner now seeks leave to lodge the record belatedly and proceed with an appeal of the order.

Petitioner contends that he should be permitted to lodge the record belatedly because he made a diligent effort to perfect the appeal but the circuit clerk refused to lodge the record. A petitioner has the right to appeal a ruling on a petition for postconviction relief. Scott v. State, 281 Ark. 436, 664 S.W.2d 475 (1984). With that right, however, goes the responsibility to file a timelynotice of appeal and tender the record here within the time limits set by the rules of procedure. If a petitioner fails to tender the record in a timely fashion, the burden is on the petition to make a showing of good cause for the failure to comply with proper procedure. See Garner v. State, 293 Ark. 309, 737 S.W.2d 637 (1987). The fact that a petitioner is proceeding pro se in itself does not constitute good cause for the failure to conform to the prevailing rules of procedure. Walker v. State, 283 Ark. 339, 676 S.W.2d 460 (1984); Thompson v. State, 280 Ark. 163, 655 S.W.2d 424 (1983); see also Sullivan v. State, 301 Ark. 352, 784 S.W.2d 155 (1990).

This court has specifically held that it is not the responsibility of the circuit clerk, circuit court, or anyone other than the appellant to perfect an appeal. See Sullivan v. State, supra. Here, the petitioner places the entire blame for the late tender of the record on the circuit clerk. Placing blame on the clerk does not constitute

good cause for petitioner's failure to perfect the appeal. Accordingly, the motion to proceed with a belated appeal is denied.

Motion denied.