Cite as 2010 Ark. 177 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 08-554 Opinion Delivered April 15, 2010 PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE JAMES R. MUNSON CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI Appellant COUNTY, CV 2007-13276, HON. WILLARD PROCTOR, JR., JUDGE v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION SEX OFFENDER AFFIRMED. SCREENING & RISK ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE Appellee PER CURIAM The Arkansas Department of Correction Sex Offender Screening and Risk Assessment Committee (“SOSRA”) assessed appellant James R. Munson, who was convicted on a charge of first-degree violation of a minor, as a level III offender. Appellant requested administrative review of the assessment and filed a pro se petition for judicial review. The Pulaski County Circuit Court dismissed the petition. Appellant appealed the dismissal of the petition, and we dismissed that appeal, holding that no final order had been issued by SOSRA. Munson v. Ark. Dep’t of Corr. Sex Offender Screening & Risk Assessment, 369 Ark. 290, 253 S.W.3d 901 (2007). Appellant filed a new petition requesting judicial review of a final order affirming the level and appellant’s assessment dated July 27, 2007, that the circuit court again denied and dismissed. He appeals that order. We need not address appellant’s points on appeal because the record discloses that the petition seeking judicial review was not timely filed. The record includes a document that
Cite as 2010 Ark. 177 affirms appellant’s receipt of SOSRA’s final order and findings and a receipt showing that the findings were sent to appellant by certified mail. The document is witnessed and indicates that appellant received the document on August 21, 2007. The petition was filed on October 4, 2007, or forty-four days after appellant’s receipt of the final order and findings. The statute that provides for judicial review requires that a petitioner must file for review within thirty days of his receipt of the findings. Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-922(b)(7)(A)(ii) (Repl. 2009). Because appellant’s petition for judicial review was not timely filed, we affirm the circuit court’s dismissal of the petition. Affirmed. -2-
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.