Summary
In Moore, the record indicated that the circuit court had complied with the requirement that a copy of an order regarding a Rule 37 petition will be mailed promptly to the petitioner.
Summary of this case from Young v. Dir., Dep't of Workforce Servs.Opinion
No brief for appellant.
No brief for appellee.
[285 Ark. 322-A] PER CURIAM.
On March 25, 1985 we denied petitioner's motion for belated appeal. 686 S.W.2d 790 (Ark.). In the motion he had alleged that he was unable to file a timely notice of appeal because he had not received notice from the circuit court that his Rule 37 petition had been denied until several months had passed. He now asks for reconsideration based on the ground that since a prisoner's mail is not delivered directly to him but rather to the prison officials, the prisoner has no knowledge of it until it is passed along to him. He suggests that because he has been transferred four times since being committed to prison, it is possible that his mail was not delivered to him. His statement is unconvincing.
As we said when the motion for belated appeal was denied, Rule 37.3(d) provides that when an order is rendered, a copy will be mailed promptly to the petitioner. The record in this case indicates that the circuit court complied with the rule. We also said that there is a presumption that a letter mailed was received by the person to whom it was addressed. The fact that mail is delivered to the prison mailroom and not directly into the hands of the inmate is not in itself enough to overcome the presumption that it reached him. If petitioner had provided some proof that it is the practice of prison officials to withhold mail or to delay delivering it for an extended period when there has been a transfer, there might be grounds for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for belated appeal. (We note that he states that our opinion denying his motion for belated appeal was postmarked March 25, 1985 and delivered March 27, 1985.) There can be no argument with petitioner's assertion that mail [285 Ark. 322-B] between the courts and litigants deserves prompt delivery, but petitioner has not demonstrated that there was any undue delay in his case.
Motion for reconsideration denied.