Clark v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Clark v. State, 290 Ark. 128 (Ark. 1986)
717 S.W.2d 491; 1986 Ark. LEXIS 2114

Clark v. State

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Appellant, James Edwin Clark, by his attorney, Mary Ann Gunn, has filed a second motion for rule on the clerk.

We denied the first motion because appellant’s attorney did no.t take responsibility for tendering the record late. Clark v. State, 289 Ark. 382, 711 S.W.2d 162 (1986).

This second motion admits that the record was not timely filed and it was no fault of the appellant. His attorney accepts full responsibility for not perfecting the appeal on time.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See our Per Curiam opinion, In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979).

A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Reference

Full Case Name
James Edwin CLARK v. STATE of Arkansas
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published