Legal Opinion

Clark v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 13, 1986PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per 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…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Clark v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In Re Adoption of Uniform Rules of EvidenceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API